Emotions

[From Bill Powers (2004.01.06.18590 MST);

Bruce Gregory (2004.01.1851 EST)]

The next step in establishing communication here is to ask if some
stories are about other stories.

Definitely.

That's all that is needed to start an investigation in the style of the
MOL. You start with one story about something. After a while, you ask what
story you can tell about the first story (instead of about the something).
This usually introduces a new point of view. You're still aware of the
first story, but now you're looking at stories about that story that pop up
in your head. After discussing the second story for a while, a third one is
likely to show up, and so forth. The basic method just says "Keep doing
this as long as you can."

It might help if you were to give an
example of a real story about some real observation, so we wouldn't be
dealing with imaginary generalities.

"Everything we deal with is either an experience or a story."

"Is that a story?"

"Definitely."

"Isn't a story also an experience?"

"Yes."

In my terms, generalizations and hueristics belong to the class I call
"principles." Principles are thoughts that do not apply just to one
specific program of thought or action, but which can be exemplified by
specific programs. So your initial statement, that everything is either an
experience or a story, is a principle by my definitions. It applies to a
range of experiences, but is not the same thing as any one of those
experiences.

Anyway, I'm not trying to justify the idea of principles here, just to show
a link between my concept of a hierarchy of (higher-order) perceptions and
your concept of stories about stories. I don't know what you may have been
expecting to find when looking for "principle perceptions," but it's really
pretty simple. Your stories are probably replete with principles as I
define them.

We definitely agree that "experience" is the most inclusive term, applying
to everything we know about or are aware of. The HPCT model is a way of
ordering experiences of different types.

Best,

Bill P.

Message
[From David M. Goldstein (2004.01.06.2345 EST)]

[Bill Powers (2004.01.06.0748 MST)]

Bill,

So far we have the following list of descriptions to provide a definition of emotion:

Situation

Error

Desired result of action

Difficulty in correcting action

Emotion

Resoluton.

You gave the following example.

Bill:

Situation: Marc tells me I haven’t had a new idea since 1973.
Error: Immediate thought that this is unfair and untrue. A desire to list all the things I’ve written and done since then, with the purpose of showing Marc (and everybody else who reads that) that this isn’t true. Thoughts in the background – have I really lost it? What would I do if I really coudn’t think up new ideas any more? It’s bound to happen some day – has it happened already? BIG error. Got to do something about this.
Desired result of action: make Marc eat his words and grovel and take it all back. Hurt him. Get even.
Conflict. But I don’t do that sort of thing and wouldn’t want to be seen doing it. I can’t just sit and take it, I have to do SOMETHING. There’s nothing I can do except hit back. And I don’t want to do that. (Starting to feel upset and hot under the collar).
Emotion: I’m mad as hell and I’m not going to take it any more.
Resolution. There is, in fact, nothing I can do to change Marc. I look at my current and recent projects and see that my fear of losing my abilities is premature. I look at the idea of hurting Marc and realize that if I succeeded I’d really be sorry and anyway would probably just make him explode more violently. I really *don’t * want to get even. I can be the judge of my own contributions. It’s better just to get on with life, and keep working away at PCT. That’s really all I want. Finally, after enough hours, I really have no more desire to strike back – and I am no longer having the feeling that my body is ready for violent actions.

I would like to focus on the Error description. This seems to describe what might be called all your experiencial reactions to the situation. You categorize the statement as unfair and untrue. You imagine how you would argue against the statement–a line of reasoning. You become aware of background thoughts to the above. You want to be a person who has new ideas and someone saying that you have not is a big error in your self-image, which may be at a system level.

The term error makes the description seem to fall outside of the fact world and seems to involve theoretical ideas.

Do you see the Error description as factual or theoretical?

If I asked someone the following. Tell me all your reactions when someone says to you…

Would this be obtaining an error description?

Or would I have to ask for each reaction whether this is wanted or not wanted?

David

David M. Goldstein, Ph.D.

···

from [Marc Abrams (2004.01.06.0413)]

[From David M. Goldstein (2004.01.06.2345 EST)]

Bill,
So far we have the following list of descriptions to provide a
definition of emotion:
Situation
Error
Desired result of action
Difficulty in correcting action
Emotion
Resoluton.

I think your making a huge mistake here. (so, what else is new), and I can
save you a whole bunch of time and effort. You are describing what Walter
Cannon did 75 years ago, with one little control twist I don't agree with.
That is, the origination of an emotion has nothing to do with any
'difficulty in correcting action'. Cannon claimed an emotion was cognitively
thought of first and than felt. _This_ idea has not many backers today, and
for good reasons, It is incomplete. What you are talking about has
everything to do with the intensity and duration of an emotion, _Not_ it's
origination. This list does not account for pain, nor any good feelings or
anything in-between.

Marc

[From Bill Powers (2003.01.07.0743 MST)]

Marc Abrams (2004.01.06.0413)–

the origination of an emotion has
nothing to do with any

‘difficulty in correcting action’. Cannon claimed an emotion was
cognitively

thought of first and than felt. This idea has not many backers today,
and

for good reasons, It is incomplete. What you are talking about has

everything to do with the intensity and duration of an emotion,
Not it’s

origination. This list does not account for pain, nor any good feelings
or

anything in-between.

The basic problem here, concerning the origination of emotions, is in
explaining how certain events, which may involve quite abstract
perceptions, can give rise to emotions without first having been
processed by the interpretive – i.e., cognitive – processes of the
brain.
The traditional view of reactions to pain has left out the concept of a
controlled variable, and thus the reason for the reaction. The usual
explanation jumps right to the evolutionary argument, that organisms have
evolved to react to pain stimuli in such a way as to remove the cause of
the pain. This is one of those “and then a miracle occurs”
explanations with a big hole in its middle, since there is no way to test
this explanation, or in most cases even to make a working model of
it. The reason for offering such an incomplete argument was simply to
avoid saying that there was anything goal-oriented about such
“uncondioned responses”
The control-theory explanation of reactions to pain is that there is some
intermediate variable disturbed by the cause of the pain, and the action
that follows always has the effect of counteracting the painful effect,
or trying to counteract it. This works well for all simple cases like
bruises and burns, especially when we consider the whole range of effects
from the least to the largest. Consider the effect of heat on the skin.
At low levels, there is a sensation of warmth, which is not in the least
painful. As the warmth increases, it becomes hotness, which introduces a
little element of pain, and finally scalding or burning, which is most
definitely painful.
Here the pain stimulus is not distinguishable from the heat stimulus.
They are one and the same thing, being simply different amounts of the
same disturbance. And the controlled variable involved is clearly
temperature. We are organized to keep our skins at some reference
temperature (which may vary somewhat), with the effort to counteract
disturbances of skin temperature increasing as the temperature error
increases. Above some amount of error, the feeling is classified as
painful; there are even some receptors which come into play only for very
high temperatures (see below), and we call the “pain
receptors,” even though there is no stimulus called
“pain.”
When the temperature has risen to some point we mobilize seriously to do
something about it – mostly, to escape from it by withdrawing, and less
often by applying cooling effects if they’re available (sucking on a
burnt finger). I don’t think we call our reaction to a rise in skin
temperature “emotional” unless it is very large and sudden, so
energetic action is required to cope with it, and so that a marked
mobilization of the biochemical systems is required to support that
degree of action.
The point here is that with regard to skin temperature, there is no
separate “pain” sensation. Pain is simply a sensation of
temperature that is above a certain intensity. This principle can be
extended to many other instances of pain - a painfully loud sound, a
painfully bright light, a painful squeeze or pinch, a painfully acrid
smell, a painfully bitter taste, and so forth. This concept of pain
applies to all these cases equally well, with the same gradation from
small non-painful sensations to large painful sensations. In fact in all
these cases, pain is simply explained as a normal perception with a
magnitude larger than some critical amount.
And what about the existence of so-called pain receptors? I think the
concept of recruitment offers a simple explanation. In all sensory
modalities, many signals from many sensors operating in parallel
contribute to the net signal representing a sensory variable. It is found
in all cases that the total signal is made up of contributions from many
different receptors with a wide range of thresholds, so some receptors
start to fire as soon as the slightest amount of stimulus is applied (and
saturate for relatively small stimuli), while others start to fire only
with larger amounts of stimulus, all the way to the upper limits where a
receptor fires only for the largest amounts of stimulation –
“painful” amounts. The high-threshold variety of receptor would
fire only when the stimulus is strong enough to call for strong and rapid
efforts to reduce it, which means it would appear (falsely) to be
specialized to register pain. This would automatically create an apparent
class of receptors specialized to detect pain, when in fact they are only
high-threshold receptors of ordinary kinds. I believe that this
explanation covers all instances of so-called “pain
receptors.”
In this way we can explain reactions to pain simply as normal
control-system reactions to excessively large sensory stimulation. And my
model of emotion still applies, since part of taking action to correct
errors involves adjusting the reference levels of biochemical control
systems (to a degree depending on the size of the driving error
signal).
This also allows us to explain how the idea of pain appears to be
extensible to much more abstract experiences that seem unpleasant but do
not involve tissue damage or excesses of stimulation of any kind, and it
also explains why “painful” experiences of this more abstract
kind produce much the same sort of emotional feelings that we get from
the simpler stimulus-related kinds of pain. We do this by translating the
folk term “pain” into the technical term “error
signal.” We can say that any perception that has a large
enough value is accompanied – I’m trying to word this carefully – by
other experiences which we interpret as unpleasant, painful, and
negatively emotional.
Note that I am trying to avoid implying that we experience error signals.
I don’t think we do. I think we experience the perceptual consequencesthat follow from the existence of error signals – namely, the
attempts by lower-order control systems to produce the new perceptions
specified by the error signals. When I touch a hot surface, I feel the
temperature as being very high, and I also feel the sudden actions of my
muscles to remove the finger from the hot surface. Those two things
together, the very high temperature and the feeling of automatically and
vigorously trying to reduce it – are what I call “pain”.
Without the reaction, the temperature signal would just be information.
Remember G. Gordon Liddy holding his hand over the candle flame? He did
it, he said, by “not minding” the burning sensation. In other
words, by not making any effort to stop it, which was done by not
desiring the sensation to be any less than what it was, and so not
generating the usual error signal that anyone but a raving space loon
would generate.

This analysis leads to conclusions about emotion and pain that are very
different from any I have ever read in the traditional literature. I
think the analysis is simpler, more detailed, and applicable to more
phenomena than any others I have read (obviously – I would have adopted
any analysis I thought was better).

I won’t tackle positive emotions here, except to note that they are
typically transient (one can’t go on for a whole day feeling exhilarated
without chemical aid), and typically relative (a reduction in pain or
stress feels good even though the pain or stress is still there). They
are related to error signals but not quite in the same way that negative
emotions are related.

Last remark:

It is true, as you say, that “the origination of an emotion has
nothing to do with any ‘difficulty in correcting [error]’.” It is
not the difficulty that results in action and feelings, but the error. If
one does not wish (or is not organized) to correct the state of a
perception, to experience it in some other state than the present one,
there will be no error, no attempt to act, and no emotion, regardless of
what difficulties might be present.

Best,

Bill P.

Message
[From David Goldstein 2004.01.08.0648 ESTS)]

[From Bill Powers (2003.01.07.0743 MST)]

Bill and listmates,

At the residential center for adolescents where I work, there are incidents in which a resident will self-inflict cuts on his/her body.

When questioned about this, the residents report the cutting helps them to feel better.

Any comments or questions?

David

David M. Goldstein, Ph.D.

···

-----Original Message-----
From: Control Systems Group Network (CSGnet) [mailto:CSGNET@listserv.uiuc.edu] ** On Behalf Of** Bill Powers
Sent: Wednesday, January 07, 2004 11:11 AM
To: CSGNET@listserv.uiuc.edu
Subject: Re: Emotions

[From Bill Powers (2003.01.07.0743 MST)]

Marc Abrams (2004.01.06.0413)–

the origination of an emotion has nothing to do with any
'difficulty in correcting action'. Cannon claimed an emotion was cognitively
thought of first and than felt. _This_ idea has not many backers today, and
for good reasons, It is incomplete. What you are talking about has
everything to do with the intensity and duration of an emotion,  _Not_ it's
origination. This list does not account for pain, nor any good feelings or

anything in-between.

The basic problem here, concerning the origination of emotions, is in explaining how certain events, which may involve quite abstract perceptions, can give rise to emotions without first having been processed by the interpretive – i.e., cognitive – processes of the brain.
The traditional view of reactions to pain has left out the concept of a controlled variable, and thus the reason for the reaction. The usual explanation jumps right to the evolutionary argument, that organisms have evolved to react to pain stimuli in such a way as to remove the cause of the pain. This is one of those “and then a miracle occurs” explanations with a big hole in its middle, since there is no way to test this explanation, or in most cases even to make a working model of it. The reason for offering such an incomplete argument was simply to avoid saying that there was anything goal-oriented about such “uncondioned responses”
The control-theory explanation of reactions to pain is that there is some intermediate variable disturbed by the cause of the pain, and the action that follows always has the effect of counteracting the painful effect, or trying to counteract it. This works well for all simple cases like bruises and burns, especially when we consider the whole range of effects from the least to the largest. Consider the effect of heat on the skin. At low levels, there is a sensation of warmth, which is not in the least painful. As the warmth increases, it becomes hotness, which introduces a little element of pain, and finally scalding or burning, which is most definitely painful.
Here the pain stimulus is not distinguishable from the heat stimulus. They are one and the same thing, being simply different amounts of the same disturbance. And the controlled variable involved is clearly temperature. We are organized to keep our skins at some reference temperature (which may vary somewhat), with the effort to counteract disturbances of skin temperature increasing as the temperature error increases. Above some amount of error, the feeling is classified as painful; there are even some receptors which come into play only for very high temperatures (see below), and we call the “pain receptors,” even though there is no stimulus called “pain.”
When the temperature has risen to some point we mobilize seriously to do something about it – mostly, to escape from it by withdrawing, and less often by applying cooling effects if they’re available (sucking on a burnt finger). I don’t think we call our reaction to a rise in skin temperature “emotional” unless it is very large and sudden, so energetic action is required to cope with it, and so that a marked mobilization of the biochemical systems is required to support that degree of action.
The point here is that with regard to skin temperature, there is no separate “pain” sensation. Pain is simply a sensation of temperature that is above a certain intensity. This principle can be extended to many other instances of pain - a painfully loud sound, a painfully bright light, a painful squeeze or pinch, a painfully acrid smell, a painfully bitter taste, and so forth. This concept of pain applies to all these cases equally well, with the same gradation from small non-painful sensations to large painful sensations. In fact in all these cases, pain is simply explained as a normal perception with a magnitude larger than some critical amount.
And what about the existence of so-called pain receptors? I think the concept of recruitment offers a simple explanation. In all sensory modalities, many signals from many sensors operating in parallel contribute to the net signal representing a sensory variable. It is found in all cases that the total signal is made up of contributions from many different receptors with a wide range of thresholds, so some receptors start to fire as soon as the slightest amount of stimulus is applied (and saturate for relatively small stimuli), while others start to fire only with larger amounts of stimulus, all the way to the upper limits where a receptor fires only for the largest amounts of stimulation – “painful” amounts. The high-threshold variety of receptor would fire only when the stimulus is strong enough to call for strong and rapid efforts to reduce it, which means it would appear (falsely) to be specialized to register pain. This would automatically create an apparent class of receptors specialized to detect pain, when in fact they are only high-threshold receptors of ordinary kinds. I believe that this explanation covers all instances of so-called “pain receptors.”
In this way we can explain reactions to pain simply as normal control-system reactions to excessively large sensory stimulation. And my model of emotion still applies, since part of taking action to correct errors involves adjusting the reference levels of biochemical control systems (to a degree depending on the size of the driving error signal).
This also allows us to explain how the idea of pain appears to be extensible to much more abstract experiences that seem unpleasant but do not involve tissue damage or excesses of stimulation of any kind, and it also explains why “painful” experiences of this more abstract kind produce much the same sort of emotional feelings that we get from the simpler stimulus-related kinds of pain. We do this by translating the folk term “pain” into the technical term “error signal.” We can say that * any* perception that has a large enough value is accompanied – I’m trying to word this carefully – by other experiences which we interpret as unpleasant, painful, and negatively emotional.
Note that I am trying to avoid implying that we experience error signals. I don’t think we do. I think we experience the perceptual consequences that follow from the existence of error signals – namely, the attempts by lower-order control systems to produce the new perceptions specified by the error signals. When I touch a hot surface, I feel the temperature as being very high, and I also feel the sudden actions of my muscles to remove the finger from the hot surface. Those two things together, the very high temperature and the feeling of automatically and vigorously trying to reduce it – are what I call “pain”. Without the reaction, the temperature signal would just be information. Remember G. Gordon Liddy holding his hand over the candle flame? He did it, he said, by “not minding” the burning sensation. In other words, by not making any effort to stop it, which was done by not desiring the sensation to be any less than what it was, and so not generating the usual error signal that anyone but a raving space loon would generate.

This analysis leads to conclusions about emotion and pain that are very different from any I have ever read in the traditional literature. I think the analysis is simpler, more detailed, and applicable to more phenomena than any others I have read (obviously – I would have adopted any analysis I thought was better).

I won’t tackle positive emotions here, except to note that they are typically transient (one can’t go on for a whole day feeling exhilarated without chemical aid), and typically relative (a reduction in pain or stress feels good even though the pain or stress is still there). They are related to error signals but not quite in the same way that negative emotions are related.

Last remark:

It is true, as you say, that “the origination of an emotion has nothing to do with any ‘difficulty in correcting [error]’.” It is not the difficulty that results in action and feelings, but the error. If one does not wish (or is not organized) to correct the state of a perception, to experience it in some other state than the present one, there will be no error, no attempt to act, and no emotion, regardless of what difficulties might be present.

Best,

Bill P.

[From Dick Robertson,2004.01.08.0750CST]

"David M. Goldstein" wrote:

  Bill and listmates,
At the residential center for adolescents where I work, there are
incidents in which a resident will self-inflict cuts on his/her body.
When questioned about this, the residents report the cutting helps
them
to feel better.
Any comments or questions?

An adolescent girl I saw for therapy long ago also cut her wrists, not
fully enough to kill herself, just enough to cause considerable pain.
She explained that she did it to feel (anything!). In a family riddled
with conflicts, where she was pressured to live up to other peoples'
fantasies she had essentially anesthetized herself to keep from going
crazy.

Best,

Dick R.

···

[From Bill Powers (2004.01.08.0800 MST)]

David M. Goldstein
(2004.01.06.2345 EST)-

[Bill
Powers (2004.01.06.0748
MST)]

Bill,

So far we have the following list of descriptions to provide a definition
of emotion:

Situation

Error

Desired result of action

Difficulty in correcting action

Emotion

Resoluton.

You gave the following
example.

has
it happened already? BIG error. Got to do something about this.

Desired result of action: make Marc eat his words and grovel and take it
all back. Hurt him. Get even.

The term error makes the
description seem to fall outside of the fact world and seems to involve
theoretical ideas.

Do you see the Error
description as factual or theoretical?

Theoretical; I am, among other things, a theoretician. A less theoretical
description would involve saying how I felt. The critical statement seems
to create a response directly, yet as I understand it, a controlled
variable must have been disturbed. By attending more closely I perceive
what it is – my own sense of competence. Then, after the fact, I can
reason out that my response was a defense against disturbance of my sense
of competence. Only then can I really see that this is the right
explanation of my emotion.

If I asked someone the
following. Tell me all your reactions when someone says to you…

Would this be obtaining an
error description?

Not quite. What you are asking for is a description of the actions
produced to counteract a disturbance, but the answer wouldn’t tell you
what was disturbed. To find out what was disturbed, you might ask the
person what difference it makes if someone says that, or what it would
mean if it were true, or why you bother to have a reaction.

Or would I have to ask for each
reaction whether this is wanted or not wanted?

The reaction is not what is wanted or not wanted. The controlled variable
is.So you have to focus on what the person wants, not the actions. You
might have asked me, “What’s wrong with not having produced anything
new in 30 years?” You don’t take anything for granted, but ask the
obvious questions.

Best,

Bill P.

[From Bill Powers (2004.01.08.0855 MST)]

David Goldstein 2004.01.08.0648
ESTS)]

···

[From
Bill Powers (2003.01.07.0743 MST)]

Bill and listmates,

At the residential center for adolescents where I work, there are
incidents in which a resident will self-inflict cuts on his/her
body.

When questioned about this, the residents report the cutting helps them
to feel better.

Any comments or questions?

David

David M. Goldstein, Ph.D.

-----Original Message-----
From: Control Systems Group Network (CSGnet)
[mailto:CSGNET@listserv.uiuc.edu]
On Behalf Of Bill Powers
Sent: Wednesday, January 07, 2004 11:11 AM
To: CSGNET@listserv.uiuc.edu
Subject: Re: Emotions

[From Bill Powers (2003.01.07.0743 MST)]

Marc Abrams (2004.01.06.0413)–

the origination of an emotion has nothing to do with any
‘difficulty in correcting action’. Cannon claimed an emotion was
cognitively
thought of first and than felt. This idea has not many backers
today, and
for good reasons, It is incomplete. What you are talking about
has
everything to do with the intensity and duration of an emotion,
Not it’s
origination. This list does not account for pain, nor any good
feelings or
anything in-between.

The basic problem here, concerning the origination of emotions, is in
explaining how certain events, which may involve quite abstract
perceptions, can give rise to emotions without first having been
processed by the interpretive – i.e., cognitive – processes of the
brain.

The traditional view of reactions to pain has left out the concept of
a controlled variable, and thus the reason for the reaction. The usual
explanation jumps right to the evolutionary argument, that organisms have
evolved to react to pain stimuli in such a way as to remove the cause of
the pain. This is one of those “and then a miracle occurs”
explanations with a big hole in its middle, since there is no way to test
this explanation, or in most cases even to make a working model of
it. The reason for offering such an incomplete argument was simply to
avoid saying that there was anything goal-oriented about such
“uncondioned responses”

The control-theory explanation of reactions to pain is that there is
some intermediate variable disturbed by the cause of the pain, and the
action that follows always has the effect of counteracting the painful
effect, or trying to counteract it. This works well for all simple cases
like bruises and burns, especially when we consider the whole range of
effects from the least to the largest. Consider the effect of heat on the
skin. At low levels, there is a sensation of warmth, which is not in the
least painful. As the warmth increases, it becomes hotness, which
introduces a little element of pain, and finally scalding or burning,
which is most definitely painful.

Here the pain stimulus is not distinguishable from the heat stimulus.
They are one and the same thing, being simply different amounts of the
same disturbance. And the controlled variable involved is clearly
temperature. We are organized to keep our skins at some reference
temperature (which may vary somewhat), with the effort to counteract
disturbances of skin temperature increasing as the temperature error
increases. Above some amount of error, the feeling is classified as
painful; there are even some receptors which come into play only for very
high temperatures (see below), and we call the “pain
receptors,” even though there is no stimulus called
“pain.”

When the temperature has risen to some point we mobilize seriously to
do something about it – mostly, to escape from it by withdrawing, and
less often by applying cooling effects if they’re available (sucking on a
burnt finger). I don’t think we call our reaction to a rise in skin
temperature “emotional” unless it is very large and sudden, so
energetic action is required to cope with it, and so that a marked
mobilization of the biochemical systems is required to support that
degree of action.

The point here is that with regard to skin temperature, there is no
separate “pain” sensation. Pain is simply a sensation of
temperature that is above a certain intensity. This principle can be
extended to many other instances of pain - a painfully loud sound, a
painfully bright light, a painful squeeze or pinch, a painfully acrid
smell, a painfully bitter taste, and so forth. This concept of pain
applies to all these cases equally well, with the same gradation from
small non-painful sensations to large painful sensations. In fact in all
these cases, pain is simply explained as a normal perception with a
magnitude larger than some critical amount.

And what about the existence of so-called pain receptors? I think the
concept of recruitment offers a simple explanation. In all sensory
modalities, many signals from many sensors operating in parallel
contribute to the net signal representing a sensory variable. It is found
in all cases that the total signal is made up of contributions from many
different receptors with a wide range of thresholds, so some receptors
start to fire as soon as the slightest amount of stimulus is applied (and
saturate for relatively small stimuli), while others start to fire only
with larger amounts of stimulus, all the way to the upper limits where a
receptor fires only for the largest amounts of stimulation –
“painful” amounts. The high-threshold variety of receptor would
fire only when the stimulus is strong enough to call for strong and rapid
efforts to reduce it, which means it would appear (falsely) to be
specialized to register pain. This would automatically create an apparent
class of receptors specialized to detect pain, when in fact they are only
high-threshold receptors of ordinary kinds. I believe that this
explanation covers all instances of so-called “pain
receptors.”

In this way we can explain reactions to pain simply as normal
control-system reactions to excessively large sensory stimulation. And my
model of emotion still applies, since part of taking action to correct
errors involves adjusting the reference levels of biochemical control
systems (to a degree depending on the size of the driving error
signal).

This also allows us to explain how the idea of pain appears to be
extensible to much more abstract experiences that seem unpleasant but do
not involve tissue damage or excesses of stimulation of any kind, and it
also explains why “painful” experiences of this more abstract
kind produce much the same sort of emotional feelings that we get from
the simpler stimulus-related kinds of pain. We do this by translating the
folk term “pain” into the technical term “error
signal.” We can say that any perception that has a large enough
value is accompanied – I’m trying to word this carefully – by other
experiences which we interpret as unpleasant, painful, and negatively
emotional.

Note that I am trying to avoid implying that we experience error
signals. I don’t think we do. I think we experience the perceptual
consequences that follow from the existence of error signals –
namely, the attempts by lower-order control systems to produce the new
perceptions specified by the error signals. When I touch a hot surface, I
feel the temperature as being very high, and I also feel the sudden
actions of my muscles to remove the finger from the hot surface. Those
two things together, the very high temperature and the feeling of
automatically and vigorously trying to reduce it – are what I call
“pain”. Without the reaction, the temperature signal would just
be information. Remember G. Gordon Liddy holding his hand over the candle
flame? He did it, he said, by “not minding” the burning
sensation. In other words, by not making any effort to stop it, which was
done by not desiring the sensation to be any less than what it was, and
so not generating the usual error signal that anyone but a raving space
loon would generate.

This analysis leads to conclusions about emotion and pain that are
very different from any I have ever read in the traditional literature. I
think the analysis is simpler, more detailed, and applicable to more
phenomena than any others I have read (obviously – I would have adopted
any analysis I thought was better).

I won’t tackle positive emotions here, except to note that they are
typically transient (one can’t go on for a whole day feeling exhilarated
without chemical aid), and typically relative (a reduction in pain or
stress feels good even though the pain or stress is still there). They
are related to error signals but not quite in the same way that negative
emotions are related.

Last remark:

It is true, as you say, that “the origination of an emotion has
nothing to do with any ‘difficulty in correcting [error]’.” It is
not the difficulty that results in action and feelings, but the error. If
one does not wish (or is not organized) to correct the state of a
perception, to experience it in some other state than the present one,
there will be no error, no attempt to act, and no emotion, regardless of
what difficulties might be present.

Best,

Bill P.

[From Kenny Kitzke (2004.01.08)]

<David Goldstein 2004.01.08.0648 ESTS)>

When questioned about this, the residents report the cutting helps them to feel better.

Any comments or questions?>

Hi David. I would suggest you use the Test to determine exactly what variable such a resident is controlling.

“Feel better” is rather vague to an observer. Why not do an MOL with the resident?

Perhaps they could discover other actions that would make them “feel better” without causing pain or a trip to the infirmry?

Tennis Controller Kenny

<At the residential center for adolescents where I work, there are incidents in which a resident will self-inflict cuts on his/her body.

Message
[FromDavid M. Goldstein (2004.01.09.0359
EST)

[Bill Powers (2004.01.08.0800 MST)]

Bill: To find out what was disturbed, you might ask the person what difference it makes if someone says that, or what it would mean if it were true, or why you bother to have a reaction.

David: I am trying to find a nontheoretical way of asking a person to give me information about his/her “errors” to a situation description. Without going into a lecture about PCT, or without doing the MOL, how can one ask the question?

What bothers or upsets you about the situation descritpion?

What would it mean to you if the situation description were true?

If you could change the situatoin description in any way, would you? How?

David

David M. Goldstein, Ph.D.

Message
[From David Goldstein (2004.01.09.0415 EST)]

[ Kenny Kitzke (2004.01.08)]

Hello Ken,

Ken:

Hi David. I would suggest you use the Test to determine exactly what variable such a resident is controlling.

“Feel better” is rather vague to an observer. Why not do an MOL with the resident?

Perhaps they could discover other actions that would make them “feel better” without causing pain or a trip to the infirmry?

David: I agree and try to do what you suggest when possible. I only gave the example to point out that some people seek out what most people would consider to be painful experiences.

The “painful experience” is the means by which other experiences are controlled.

The action is not always to move away or avoid the “painful experience.”

David

David M. Goldstein, Ph.D.

P.S. Hope that you, Dick and I can play tennis this summer at the Annual CSG Conference.

···

-----Original Message-----
From: Control Systems Group Network (CSGnet) [mailto:CSGNET@listserv.uiuc.edu] On Behalf Of Kenneth Kitzke Value Creation Systems
Sent: Thursday, January 08, 2004 10:57 AM
To: CSGNET@listserv.uiuc.edu
Subject: Re: Emotions

[From Kenny Kitzke (2004.01.08)]

<David Goldstein 2004.01.08.0648 ESTS)>

When questioned about this, the residents report the cutting helps them to feel better.

Any comments or questions?>

Hi David. I would suggest you use the Test to determine exactly what variable such a resident is controlling.

“Feel better” is rather vague to an observer. Why not do an MOL with the resident?

Perhaps they could discover other actions that would make them “feel better” without causing pain or a trip to the infirmry?

Tennis Controller Kenny

< At the residential center for adolescents where I work, there are incidents in which a resident will self-inflict cuts on his/her body.

[From Kenny Kitzke (2004.01.09)]

<David Goldstein (2004.01.09.0415 EST)>

The “painful experience” is the means by which other experiences are controlled.

The action is not always to move away or avoid the “painful experience.”>

Right. I think a PCTer readily understands and accepts that. But, government does not. Governments will probably confine such a person in a governmental facility labeling them as dangerous or insane: for their own good if not for society’s, of course.

I suspect, given your job, you would try to get such a person to explore different actions that might get them more of what they want. But, in the end, I guess they have a right to control that way if if does not interfere with others rights?

<P.S. Hope that you, Dick and I can play tennis this summer at the Annual CSG Conference.>

Yeppers. That is my intention. I grew up in Milwaukee and went to IIT in Chicago for a year.

Dick and I did play tennis at Loyola. We missed both you and my wife. I think Dick was going to get his wife to play some mixed doubles, but Patsy fizzled as the conference approached. We did spend some time in Santa Barbara later in 2003 and Patsy and I did get to play even though the season was pretty much over in Pittsburgh/Delmont.

<David: I agree and try to do what you suggest when possible. I only gave the example to point out that some people seek out what most people would consider to be painful experiences.

[From Bill Powers (2004.01.09.1510 MST)] –

David M. Goldstein
(2004.01.09.0359 EST–

I’m swamped. Looks as if we
agree pretty well now. I’ve been at the keyboard since 8:00 AM with an
hour off for the Mars Expolorer news conference, and that is all for
today.

Best,

Bill P.

[From Bruce Abbott (2018.04.28.0820 EDT)]

Joh Orengo (2018.04.25.0926 EEST) –

Thanks for the video, Rupert. I haven’t had a chance to listen to it yet, but I look forward to it.

Bruce A., if emotion systems function as control systems, how would you diagram your “fear system” example as a control loop?

For some reason I never received this post from CSGnet, but did see it quoted in a reply by Bruce Nevin.

The so-called “fear” system as proposed by Jaak Panksepp is a phylogenetically ancient system in the brain that presumably evolved as an innate mechanism for dealing with physical threats. Although all levels in the brain are involved, the systems involving emotion appear to be organized primarily in the limbic system. At the lower end this connects with the hypothalamus and at the upper end with the cortex in the forebrain. Between are structures including the amygdala, (electrical stimulation there can elicit feelings of fear or rage, depending on the locus), septum (which appears to exert an inhibitory effect; lesions of the septum can produce “septal rage” in which an animal will attack anything that gets too close), and hippocampus (which is involved in laying down long-term memories). The hypothalamus is sometimes viewed as the upper terminus of the autonomic nervous system and also has both neural and biochemical connections to the pituitary gland; by these means the hypothalamus can produce the physiological changes associated with the emotions.

Certain innately determined perceptual states can activate the fear system; for example, many animals innately recognize certain perceptions as indicative of danger; additional ones develop as a result of the animal’s experience with the world. How the animal responds depends sensitively on the perceived circumstances. In the rat, for example, there are three classic behaviors that occur when signs of danger appear: freezing, fleeing, or fighting. A rabbit might freeze at the sound of a twig breaking, as this may signal the stealthy approach of a predator; by freezing, the animal remains quiet and motionless, thus reducing the likelihood of being spotted if indeed a predator is near. Fleeing occurs when the source of danger is perceived to be near, especially if approaching. Fighting occurs when the predator is close and there is no perceivable exit through which to run.

In each case the physiological arousal sometimes referred to as the “fight-or-flight” mechanism occurs to greater or lesser degree depending presumably on the perceived level of danger. Should great exertion be required for self-defense, these systems increase oxygenation of the blood, release of glucose to fuel the muscles, and increase the heart rate and blood pressure. These changes are felt and become part of what it feels like to be afraid.

Perceiving danger depends on higher-level perceptual systems that “recognize” what may be rather a rather complex set of inputs, including memories of similar past events, as connoting danger. Behaviors that successfully dealt with the emerging situation in the past are likely to be employed, such as running to a perceived place of safety as opposed to just attempting to outrun the danger.

Associated with such activity in the fear system is (in humans, at least) a strong impulse to do something to protect oneself – even if that means only curling up into a tight ball. From a PCT perspective, there is a controlled perception (personal safety, let’s say); a reference level (perceiving oneself to be safe), disturbances to the perception of safety (dangers), and actions tending to counter the effects of those disturbances. Those actions are changes to the references of lower-level systems that bring about sets of organized behaviors that we would label as defensive, along with changes in the body’s physiological balance that tend to support vigorous defensive activity.

Emotions are said to have “valences” – positive or negative, or pleasant/unpleasant. Negative emotions include such ones as fear, anger or hatred, jealousy, or guilt. Positive emotions include such ones as love, joy, cheerfulness, or sexual attraction. How is one to account for these valences within PCT? Bill Powers suggested that negative feelings arise from error in a control system and positive ones from reduction of error. But this in itself does not account for why there can be error in a controlled perception without that being consciously accompanied by a negative feeling-state. It would appear that only certain perceptions are involved in emotional arousal and that those are associated with specialized systems that orchestrate those emotions. Furthermore, Powers’ explanation does not really do an adequate job of accounting for the positive emotions, as he himself admitted. I think the key to those positive emotions is to recognize that they, too, are evolved systems whose mechanisms have been shaped by natural selection to aid survival of the individual and/or the species. We can assume from the PCT framework that the positive emotions arise from brain systems that are organized to control certain kinds of perception. A parent’s love for a child, for example, encompasses desires to (references for) nurture and protect the child, and enjoyment when interacting with it. Love is not a reduction of error in some control system, but a complex and sophisticated mechanism with its own specialized controlled perceptions and outputs.

The suggestions above are only a sketch of how I view emotions to fit into perceptual control theory; they are only an initial guess that will require considerable development in the light of empirical findings before they can be considered anything more than educated guesses as to how all this might work.

Comments welcome!

Bruce

[Joh Orengo 29.04.18 2:36 EEST]

Thanks for the response, Bruce. Even as thorough as your post was, it seems like there is even more going on, e.g. [Angus Jenkinson. 11:57. 26.4.18.] and [Joh Orengo 2018.04.29.0751 EEST] in the’ Emotions construct the world’ posts. My question is, can PCT be extended, or what have you, to address these issues surrounding emotion that you and others have brought up?

Joh

···

Sent with ProtonMail Secure Email.

������� Original Message �������

On April 28, 2018 3:20 PM, Bruce Abbott bbabbott@frontier.com wrote:

[From Bruce Abbott (2018.04.28.0820 EDT)]

Joh Orengo (2018.04.25.0926 EEST) –

Thanks for the video, Rupert. I haven’t had a chance to listen to it yet, but I look forward to it.

Bruce A., if emotion systems function as control systems, how would you diagram your “fear system” example as a control loop?

For some reason I never received this post from CSGnet, but did see it quoted in a reply by Bruce Nevin.

The so-called “fearâ€? system as proposed by Jaak Panksepp is a phylogenetically ancient system in the brain that presumably evolved as an innate mechanism for dealing with physical threats. Although all levels in the brain are involved, the systems involving emotion appear to be organized primarily in the limbic system. At the lower end this connects with the hypothalamus and at the upper end with the cortex in the forebrain. Between are structures including the amygdala, (electrical stimulation there can elicit feelings of fear or rage, depending on the locus), septum (which appears to exert an inhibitory effect; lesions of the septum can produce “septal rageâ€? in which an animal will attack anything that gets too close), and hippocampus (which is involved in laying down long-term memories). The hypothalamus is sometimes viewed as the upper terminus of the autonomic nervous system and also has both neural and biochemical connections to the pituitary gland; by these means the hypothalamus can produce the physiological changes associated with the emotions.

Certain innately determined perceptual states can activate the fear system; for example, many animals innately recognize certain perceptions as indicative of danger; additional ones develop as a result of the animal’s experience with the world. How the animal responds depends sensitively on the perceived circumstances. In the rat, for example, there are three classic behaviors that occur when signs of danger appear: freezing, fleeing, or fighting. A rabbit might freeze at the sound of a twig breaking, as this may signal the stealthy approach of a predator; by freezing, the animal remains quiet and motionless, thus reducing the likelihood of being spotted if indeed a predator is near. Fleeing occurs when the source of danger is perceived to be near, especially if approaching. Fighting occurs when the predator is close and there is no perceivable exit through which to run.

In each case the physiological arousal sometimes referred to as the “fight-or-flightâ€? mechanism occurs to greater or lesser degree depending presumably on the perceived level of danger. Should great exertion be required for self-defense, these systems increase oxygenation of the blood, release of glucose to fuel the muscles, and increase the heart rate and blood pressure. These changes are felt and become part of what it feels like to be afraid.

Perceiving danger depends on higher-level perceptual systems that “recognizeâ€? what may be rather a rather complex set of inputs, including memories of similar past events, as connoting danger. Behaviors that successfully dealt with the emerging situation in the past are likely to be employed, such as running to a perceived place of safety as opposed to just attempting to outrun the danger.

Associated with such activity in the fear system is (in humans, at least) a strong impulse to do something to protect oneself – even if that meaans only curling up into a tight ball. From a PCT perspective, there is a controlled perception (personal safety, let’s say); a reference level (perceiving oneself to be safe), disturbances to the perception of safety (dangers), and actions tending to counter the effects of those disturbances. Those actions are changes to the references of lower-level systems that bring about sets of organized behaviors that we would label as defensive, along with changes in the body’s physiological balance that tend to support vigorous defensive activity.

Emotions are said to have “valencesâ€? – positiive or negative, or pleasant/unpleasant. Negative emotions include such ones as fear, anger or hatred, jealousy, or guilt. Positive emotions include such ones as love, joy, cheerfulness, or sexual attraction. How is one to account for these valences within PCT? Bill Powers suggested that negative feelings arise from error in a control system and positive ones from reduction of error. But this in itself does not account for why there can be error in a controlled perception without that being consciously accompanied by a negative feeling-state. It would appear that only certain perceptions are involved in emotional arousal and that those are associated with specialized systems that orchestrate those emotions. Furthermore, Powers’ explanation does not really do an adequate job of accounting for the positive emotions, as he himself admitted. I think the key to those positive emotions is to recognize that they, too, are evolved systems whose mechanisms have been shaped by natural selection to aid survival of the individual and/or the species. We can assume from the PCT framework that the positive emotions arise from brain systems that are organized to control certain kinds of perception. A parent’s love for a child, for example, encompasses desires to (references for) nurture and protect the child, and enjoyment when interacting with it. Love is not a reduction of error in some control system, but a complex and sophisticated mechanism with its own specialized controlled perceptions and outputs.

The suggestions above are only a sketch of how I view emotions to fit into perceptual control theory; they are only an initial guess that will require considerable development in the light of empirical findings before they can be considered anything more than educated guesses as to how all this might work.

Comments welcome!

Bruce

[Martin Taylor

[Joh Orengo 29.04.18 2:36 EEST]

    ... My question is, can PCT be extended, or what have you, to

address these issues surrounding emotion that you and others
have brought up?

Probably. Here’s my own take on it.

This is highly speculative, but as Chapter 17 of Powers (2005)

shows, he was not averse to speculating on his own account.
Incidentally, Powers states that he wanted this chapter to be in the
1973 edition, but his editor insisted on its removal.

"*      Not too sharply, I am afraid, but most tantalizingly, a picture

begins to form of a second hierarchy of control that splits off
from the behavioral control systems at about order two or three;
this other branch is concerned with the sensing and control of
quantities derived from sensors and from chemical messengers
throughout the body. … the effect is to produce patterns of
feeling states that arise as the biochemical balances in the body
change in response to the commands.* * [And just before the start of the above] “The whole system is
utterly fascinating, a multileveled system that begins in the
brain and continues down – who knows how far? Perhaps the
first-order systems in the biochemical chain are inside the cells
themselves, throughout the body.”*

                    Powers (2005) p258-9

I might add to the end of the second passage "as well as in the

microbiome, the ecologies of micro-organisms that outnumber our
cells by an order of magnitude and that produce and use a flood of
chemicals in which our cells are bathed."

In the last few years much research has shown how the microbiome may

greatly influence our mental well-being in many ways (e.g., Deans
2016, Flowers and Ellingrod 2015, Kaplan Rucklidge and Rolijn, 2015,
Sharon et al. 2016), up to the level of mental disorders such as
autism (e.g. Kang et al. 2103, Mulle Sharpe and Cubells 2013, Vuoung
and Hsiao 2017), schizophrenia (Dickerson, Severance and Yolken
2017, Kanji et al. 2018, Castro-Nallar et al. 2015), depression and
bipolar disorder (Dickerson, Severance and Yolken 2017), and perhaps
Alzheimer’s (Kohler et al. 2016, Shoemark and Allen, 2015). These
mental “disorders� are distressing, but to conduct a PCT analysis of
them is far beyond my competence. Nevertheless, I can follow Powers
in suggesting a possible place for emotion in PCT. [I’m not including the references themselves here, but you can get them from Google Scholar if you want to follow up. They aren’t PCT-related, other than as evidence that the microbiome does affect emption and mental well-being].

We might start with the fact that there exists a loop in the generic

sense between the neural system and the complicated system of
interacting hormones, enzymes, neurotransmitter and other
biochemicals. Synaptic activity releases neurotransmitters into the
surrounding medium, though most of it is usually resorbed. Glands
secrete and release their various biochemicals on neural command,
and the biochemical environment strongly influences how neurons act
and interact. So there is an interior biochemical environment for
neural output and input just as there is for physical output by way
of muscles to the environment outside the organism’s skin and input
from that exterior environment by way of sensors. We might consider
glands as the equivalent of muscles, and perhaps there are different
neural pathways that are specially sensitive to variations in
particular biochemicals that might act as sensors.

Biochemists already know of many homeostatic loops in many

organisms. A homeostatic loop is a negative feedback loop with N
stages. Each “stage” could be something like the concentration of a
particular biochemical, produced from the interactions of two other
biochemicals, one that is the previous stage of the loop and one
coming from outside the loop. The one from outside can act as a
reference signal, a disturbance signal, or both at the same time, a
reference for the preceding stage, a disturbance for the following
stage, and a mixture of both for intervening stages around the loop.

The biochemicals in the interior environment might, for example,

globally change the gains of control loops and the interconnection
strengths among them, whether the biochemicals are hormones released
to the bloodstream in the operations of synapses and glands or are
the waste products of bacterial communities. They might locally
affect the performance of specific types of control, given that
there are many different types of neurotransmitter. I will not
explore these possibilities, but will take a more global, functional
view. I think there is much PCT research to be done in this area,
but my suspicion is that in this, as in so much else, Powers had a
correct fundamental insight, even if it was too much for his editor
to accept in 1973.

Here's one suggestion: emotion and mental health problems need not

be associated with error in biochemical control systems, as Powers
had suggested. Emotions are conscious perceptions, and perceptions
are functions of states. Contentment or aesthetic pleasure is as
much an emotion as is anger or frustration. So I would suppose that
emotional perceptions are some function of the values of biochemical
concentrations at different places in the system, particularly of
different neurotransmitters in the neighbourhood of synapses (which
might affect loop gains and might also link emotions to
reorganization).

We have "dissociated" or "free-floating" emotions like chronic

depression or the mania of bipolar disorder, as opposed to
depression that is easily related to a state of the external
environment such as the death of a loved one or the excitement that
is easily related to a mental or physical chase. The biochemical
states may be the same whether or not an environmental associate is
evident, but when they are associated with describable external
states, they cease being “disorders” and become “normal responses to
environmental stimuli”. In PCT terms, the emotion becomes part of a
perception of some aspect of the sensed or imagined environment.

Both may well be the product of closely related processes. When the

environmental states produce error and the biochemical states
produce, say, the excitement of the chase, success in the chase
corrects the environmentally perceived error and changes the
effective reference values down the biochemical side of the control
structure to produce an emotional state we might call “happiness”,
which is then associated with the reduction of error in the neural
part of the loop. “Happiness” is often associated with solving
difficult problems, of which a chase is an example.

When we experience an emotional state that we don't want, we might

consciously ask ourselves whether there is an external environmental
reason for feeling that way, or whether it is a purely internal
error that needs correction (“planning in imagination”). Whether we
can do anything about it depends on whether our reorganization and
the current environment provide us with the means to change the
amount of internal error – to alter the biochemical environment so
that the associated non-conscious perception approaches its
reference value. Perhaps waiting for a transient effect to
dissipate, perhaps through biochemical processes, might be
sufficient. Since the nervous system works faster than the
biochemical loops as a rule, waiting might be a generic way of
avoiding introducing error into a system by too rapid action to fix
a problem that might fix itself.

If there does not seem to be an environmental reason for feeling an

emotion we don’t want to feel, and the error does not seem to be
dissipating by waiting, then we might ask whether some action on
internal variables by way of diet, exercise, or as a last resort,
drugs, might work. But it might also be reasonable to suggest that
since biochemical variables are assumed also to be “intrinsic
variables” with genetically influenced reference values, consciously
perceived emotions might also be an aspect of reorganization,
whether or not reorganization is itself a control process.

Martin

[Joh Orengo 05.02.18 7:00 EEST]

What a PhD dissertation this would make, Martin.

Thanks for the references. I’ll look them up.

Joh

···

Sent with ProtonMail Secure Email.

������� Original Message �������

On May 2, 2018 6:44 PM, Martin Taylor mmt-csg@mmtaylor.net wrote:

[Martin Taylor

[Joh Orengo 29.04.18 2:36 EEST]

    ... My question is, can PCT be extended, or what have you, to

address these issues surrounding emotion that you and others
have brought up?

Probably. Here’s my own take on it.

This is highly speculative, but as Chapter 17 of Powers (2005)

shows, he was not averse to speculating on his own account.
Incidentally, Powers states that he wanted this chapter to be in the
1973 edition, but his editor insisted on its removal.

"* Not too sharply, I am afraid, but most tantalizingly, a picture
begins to form of a second hierarchy of control that splits off
from the behavioral control systems at about order two or three;
this other branch is concerned with the sensing and control of
quantities derived from sensors and from chemical messengers
throughout the body. … the effect is to produce patterns of
feeling states that arise as the biochemical balances in the body
change in response to the commands.* * [And just before the start of the above] “The whole system is
utterly fascinating, a multileveled system that begins in the
brain and continues down – who knows how far? Perhaps the
first-order systems in the biochemical chain are inside the cells
themselves, throughout the body.”*

Powers (2005) p258-9

I might add to the end of the second passage "as well as in the

microbiome, the ecologies of micro-organisms that outnumber our
cells by an order of magnitude and that produce and use a flood of
chemicals in which our cells are bathed."

In the last few years much research has shown how the microbiome may

greatly influence our mental well-being in many ways (e.g., Deans
2016, Flowers and Ellingrod 2015, Kaplan Rucklidge and Rolijn, 2015,
Sharon et al. 2016), up to the level of mental disorders such as
autism (e.g. Kang et al. 2103, Mulle Sharpe and Cubells 2013, Vuoung
and Hsiao 2017), schizophrenia (Dickerson, Severance and Yolken
2017, Kanji et al. 2018, Castro-Nallar et al. 2015), depression and
bipolar disorder (Dickerson, Severance and Yolken 2017), and perhaps
Alzheimer’s (Kohler et al. 2016, Shoemark and Allen, 2015). These
mental “disordersâ€? are distressing, but to conduct a PCT analysis of
them is far beyond my competence. Nevertheless, I can follow Powers
in suggesting a possible place for emotion in PCT. [I’m not including the references themselves here, but you can get them from Google Scholar if you want to follow up. They aren’t PCT-related, other than as evidence that the microbiome does affect emption and mental well-being].

We might start with the fact that there exists a loop in the generic

sense between the neural system and the complicated system of
interacting hormones, enzymes, neurotransmitter and other
biochemicals. Synaptic activity releases neurotransmitters into the
surrounding medium, though most of it is usually resorbed. Glands
secrete and release their various biochemicals on neural command,
and the biochemical environment strongly influences how neurons act
and interact. So there is an interior biochemical environment for
neural output and input just as there is for physical output by way
of muscles to the environment outside the organism’s skin and input
from that exterior environment by way of sensors. We might consider
glands as the equivalent of muscles, and perhaps there are different
neural pathways that are specially sensitive to variations in
particular biochemicals that might act as sensors.

Biochemists already know of many homeostatic loops in many

organisms. A homeostatic loop is a negative feedback loop with N
stages. Each “stage” could be something like the concentration of a
particular biochemical, produced from the interactions of two other
biochemicals, one that is the previous stage of the loop and one
coming from outside the loop. The one from outside can act as a
reference signal, a disturbance signal, or both at the same time, a
reference for the preceding stage, a disturbance for the following
stage, and a mixture of both for intervening stages around the loop.

The biochemicals in the interior environment might, for example,

globally change the gains of control loops and the interconnection
strengths among them, whether the biochemicals are hormones released
to the bloodstream in the operations of synapses and glands or are
the waste products of bacterial communities. They might locally
affect the performance of specific types of control, given that
there are many different types of neurotransmitter. I will not
explore these possibilities, but will take a more global, functional
view. I think there is much PCT research to be done in this area,
but my suspicion is that in this, as in so much else, Powers had a
correct fundamental insight, even if it was too much for his editor
to accept in 1973.

Here's one suggestion: emotion and mental health problems need not

be associated with error in biochemical control systems, as Powers
had suggested. Emotions are conscious perceptions, and perceptions
are functions of states. Contentment or aesthetic pleasure is as
much an emotion as is anger or frustration. So I would suppose that
emotional perceptions are some function of the values of biochemical
concentrations at different places in the system, particularly of
different neurotransmitters in the neighbourhood of synapses (which
might affect loop gains and might also link emotions to
reorganization).

We have "dissociated" or "free-floating" emotions like chronic

depression or the mania of bipolar disorder, as opposed to
depression that is easily related to a state of the external
environment such as the death of a loved one or the excitement that
is easily related to a mental or physical chase. The biochemical
states may be the same whether or not an environmental associate is
evident, but when they are associated with describable external
states, they cease being “disorders” and become “normal responses to
environmental stimuli”. In PCT terms, the emotion becomes part of a
perception of some aspect of the sensed or imagined environment.

Both may well be the product of closely related processes. When the

environmental states produce error and the biochemical states
produce, say, the excitement of the chase, success in the chase
corrects the environmentally perceived error and changes the
effective reference values down the biochemical side of the control
structure to produce an emotional state we might call “happiness”,
which is then associated with the reduction of error in the neural
part of the loop. “Happiness” is often associated with solving
difficult problems, of which a chase is an example.

When we experience an emotional state that we don't want, we might

consciously ask ourselves whether there is an external environmental
reason for feeling that way, or whether it is a purely internal
error that needs correction (“planning in imagination”). Whether we
can do anything about it depends on whether our reorganization and
the current environment provide us with the means to change the
amount of internal error – to alter the biochemical environment so
that the associated non-conscious perception approaches its
reference value. Perhaps waiting for a transient effect to
dissipate, perhaps through biochemical processes, might be
sufficient. Since the nervous system works faster than the
biochemical loops as a rule, waiting might be a generic way of
avoiding introducing error into a system by too rapid action to fix
a problem that might fix itself.

If there does not seem to be an environmental reason for feeling an

emotion we don’t want to feel, and the error does not seem to be
dissipating by waiting, then we might ask whether some action on
internal variables by way of diet, exercise, or as a last resort,
drugs, might work. But it might also be reasonable to suggest that
since biochemical variables are assumed also to be “intrinsic
variables” with genetically influenced reference values, consciously
perceived emotions might also be an aspect of reorganization,
whether or not reorganization is itself a control process.

Martin

I prefer chronic unresolved perceptual conflict in higher level control systems as an explanation to this speculative biochemical idea any day! (Powers, 1960 onwards)…

···

Sent with ProtonMail Secure Email.

������� Original Message �������

On May 2, 2018 6:44 PM, Martin Taylor mmt-csg@mmtaylor.net wrote:

[Martin Taylor

[Joh Orengo 29.04.18 2:36 EEST]

    ... My question is, can PCT be extended, or what have you, to

address these issues surrounding emotion that you and others
have brought up?

Probably. Here’s my own take on it.

This is highly speculative, but as Chapter 17 of Powers (2005)

shows, he was not averse to speculating on his own account.
Incidentally, Powers states that he wanted this chapter to be in the
1973 edition, but his editor insisted on its removal.

"* Not too sharply, I am afraid, but most tantalizingly, a picture
begins to form of a second hierarchy of control that splits off
from the behavioral control systems at about order two or three;
this other branch is concerned with the sensing and control of
quantities derived from sensors and from chemical messengers
throughout the body. … the effect is to produce patterns of
feeling states that arise as the biochemical balances in the body
change in response to the commands.* * [And just before the start of the above] “The whole system is
utterly fascinating, a multileveled system that begins in the
brain and continues down – who knows how far? Perhaps the
first-order systems in the biochemical chain are inside the cells
themselves, throughout the body.”*

Powers (2005) p258-9

I might add to the end of the second passage "as well as in the

microbiome, the ecologies of micro-organisms that outnumber our
cells by an order of magnitude and that produce and use a flood of
chemicals in which our cells are bathed."

In the last few years much research has shown how the microbiome may

greatly influence our mental well-being in many ways (e.g., Deans
2016, Flowers and Ellingrod 2015, Kaplan Rucklidge and Rolijn, 2015,
Sharon et al. 2016), up to the level of mental disorders such as
autism (e.g. Kang et al. 2103, Mulle Sharpe and Cubells 2013, Vuoung
and Hsiao 2017), schizophrenia (Dickerson, Severance and Yolken
2017, Kanji et al. 2018, Castro-Nallar et al. 2015), depression and
bipolar disorder (Dickerson, Severance and Yolken 2017), and perhaps
Alzheimer’s (Kohler et al. 2016, Shoemark and Allen, 2015). These
mental “disorders� are distressing, but to conduct a PCT analysis of
them is far beyond my competence. Nevertheless, I can follow Powers
in suggesting a possible place for emotion in PCT. [I’m not including the references themselves here, but you can get them from Google Scholar if you want to follow up. They aren’t PCT-related, other than as evidence that the microbiome does affect emption and mental well-being].

We might start with the fact that there exists a loop in the generic

sense between the neural system and the complicated system of
interacting hormones, enzymes, neurotransmitter and other
biochemicals. Synaptic activity releases neurotransmitters into the
surrounding medium, though most of it is usually resorbed. Glands
secrete and release their various biochemicals on neural command,
and the biochemical environment strongly influences how neurons act
and interact. So there is an interior biochemical environment for
neural output and input just as there is for physical output by way
of muscles to the environment outside the organism’s skin and input
from that exterior environment by way of sensors. We might consider
glands as the equivalent of muscles, and perhaps there are different
neural pathways that are specially sensitive to variations in
particular biochemicals that might act as sensors.

Biochemists already know of many homeostatic loops in many

organisms. A homeostatic loop is a negative feedback loop with N
stages. Each “stage” could be something like the concentration of a
particular biochemical, produced from the interactions of two other
biochemicals, one that is the previous stage of the loop and one
coming from outside the loop. The one from outside can act as a
reference signal, a disturbance signal, or both at the same time, a
reference for the preceding stage, a disturbance for the following
stage, and a mixture of both for intervening stages around the loop.

The biochemicals in the interior environment might, for example,

globally change the gains of control loops and the interconnection
strengths among them, whether the biochemicals are hormones released
to the bloodstream in the operations of synapses and glands or are
the waste products of bacterial communities. They might locally
affect the performance of specific types of control, given that
there are many different types of neurotransmitter. I will not
explore these possibilities, but will take a more global, functional
view. I think there is much PCT research to be done in this area,
but my suspicion is that in this, as in so much else, Powers had a
correct fundamental insight, even if it was too much for his editor
to accept in 1973.

Here's one suggestion: emotion and mental health problems need not

be associated with error in biochemical control systems, as Powers
had suggested. Emotions are conscious perceptions, and perceptions
are functions of states. Contentment or aesthetic pleasure is as
much an emotion as is anger or frustration. So I would suppose that
emotional perceptions are some function of the values of biochemical
concentrations at different places in the system, particularly of
different neurotransmitters in the neighbourhood of synapses (which
might affect loop gains and might also link emotions to
reorganization).

We have "dissociated" or "free-floating" emotions like chronic

depression or the mania of bipolar disorder, as opposed to
depression that is easily related to a state of the external
environment such as the death of a loved one or the excitement that
is easily related to a mental or physical chase. The biochemical
states may be the same whether or not an environmental associate is
evident, but when they are associated with describable external
states, they cease being “disorders” and become “normal responses to
environmental stimuli”. In PCT terms, the emotion becomes part of a
perception of some aspect of the sensed or imagined environment.

Both may well be the product of closely related processes. When the

environmental states produce error and the biochemical states
produce, say, the excitement of the chase, success in the chase
corrects the environmentally perceived error and changes the
effective reference values down the biochemical side of the control
structure to produce an emotional state we might call “happiness”,
which is then associated with the reduction of error in the neural
part of the loop. “Happiness” is often associated with solving
difficult problems, of which a chase is an example.

When we experience an emotional state that we don't want, we might

consciously ask ourselves whether there is an external environmental
reason for feeling that way, or whether it is a purely internal
error that needs correction (“planning in imagination”). Whether we
can do anything about it depends on whether our reorganization and
the current environment provide us with the means to change the
amount of internal error – to alter the biochemical environment so
that the associated non-conscious perception approaches its
reference value. Perhaps waiting for a transient effect to
dissipate, perhaps through biochemical processes, might be
sufficient. Since the nervous system works faster than the
biochemical loops as a rule, waiting might be a generic way of
avoiding introducing error into a system by too rapid action to fix
a problem that might fix itself.

If there does not seem to be an environmental reason for feeling an

emotion we don’t want to feel, and the error does not seem to be
dissipating by waiting, then we might ask whether some action on
internal variables by way of diet, exercise, or as a last resort,
drugs, might work. But it might also be reasonable to suggest that
since biochemical variables are assumed also to be “intrinsic
variables” with genetically influenced reference values, consciously
perceived emotions might also be an aspect of reorganization,
whether or not reorganization is itself a control process.

Martin

[Martin Taylor 2018.05.02.13.03]

Do you perceive something I said as disagreeing with this? I thought

I was taking it for granted.
Martin

···

On 2018/05/2 1:00 PM, Warren Mansell
wrote:

    I prefer chronic unresolved perceptual conflict in higher

level control systems as an explanation to this speculative
biochemical idea any day! Â (Powers, 1960 onwards)…

    On 2 May 2018, at 17:16, Joh Orengo <joh.orengo@protonmail.com        >

wrote:

[Joh Orengo 05.02.18 7:00 EEST]

What a PhD dissertation this would make, Martin.

Thanks for the references. I’ll look them up.

Joh

Sent with ProtonMail Secure Email.

������� Original Message �������

On May 2, 2018 6:44 PM, Martin Taylor <mmt-csg@mmtaylor.net >
wrote:

[Martin Taylor

[Joh Orengo 29.04.18 2:36 EEST]

            ... My question is, can PCT be extended, or what have

you, to address these issues surrounding emotion that
you and others have brought up?

Probably. Here’s my own take on it.

          This is highly speculative, but as Chapter 17 of

Powers (2005) shows, he was not averse to speculating on
his own account. Incidentally, Powers states that he
wanted this chapter to be in the 1973 edition, but his
editor insisted on its removal.

"* Not too sharply, I am afraid, but most
tantalizingly, a picture begins to form of a second
hierarchy of control that splits off from the behavioral
control systems at about order two or three; this other
branch is concerned with the sensing and control of
quantities derived from sensors and from chemical
messengers throughout the body. … the effect is to
produce patterns of feeling states that arise as the
biochemical balances in the body change in response to
the commands.* * [And just before the start of the above] “The whole
system is utterly fascinating, a multileveled system
that begins in the brain and continues down – who knows
how far? Perhaps the first-order systems in the
biochemical chain are inside the cells themselves,
throughout the body.”*

               Powers (2005) p258-9

          I might add to the end of the second passage "as well

as in the microbiome, the ecologies of micro-organisms
that outnumber our cells by an order of magnitude and that
produce and use a flood of chemicals in which our cells
are bathed."

          In the last few years much research has shown how the

microbiome may greatly influence our mental well-being in
many ways (e.g., Deans 2016, Flowers and Ellingrod 2015,
Kaplan Rucklidge and Rolijn, 2015, Sharon et al. 2016), up
to the level of mental disorders such as autism (e.g. Kang
et al. 2103, Mulle Sharpe and Cubells 2013, Vuoung and
Hsiao 2017), schizophrenia (Dickerson, Severance and
Yolken 2017, Kanji et al. 2018, Castro-Nallar et al.
2015), depression and bipolar disorder (Dickerson,
Severance and Yolken 2017), and perhaps Alzheimer’s
(Kohler et al. 2016, Shoemark and Allen, 2015). These
mental “disorders� are distressing, but to conduct a PCT
analysis of them is far beyond my competence.
Nevertheless, I can follow Powers in suggesting a possible
place for emotion in PCT. [I’m not including the references themselves here, but you can get them from Google Scholar if you want to follow up. They aren’t PCT-related, other than as evidence that the microbiome does affect emption and mental well-being].

          We might start with the fact that there exists a loop

in the generic sense between the neural system and the
complicated system of interacting hormones, enzymes,
neurotransmitter and other biochemicals. Synaptic activity
releases neurotransmitters into the surrounding medium,
though most of it is usually resorbed. Glands secrete and
release their various biochemicals on neural command, and
the biochemical environment strongly influences how
neurons act and interact. So there is an interior
biochemical environment for neural output and input just
as there is for physical output by way of muscles to the
environment outside the organism’s skin and input from
that exterior environment by way of sensors. We might
consider glands as the equivalent of muscles, and perhaps
there are different neural pathways that are specially
sensitive to variations in particular biochemicals that
might act as sensors.

          Biochemists already know of many homeostatic loops in

many organisms. A homeostatic loop is a negative feedback
loop with N stages. Each “stage” could be something like
the concentration of a particular biochemical, produced
from the interactions of two other biochemicals, one that
is the previous stage of the loop and one coming from
outside the loop. The one from outside can act as a
reference signal, a disturbance signal, or both at the
same time, a reference for the preceding stage, a
disturbance for the following stage, and a mixture of both
for intervening stages around the loop.

          The biochemicals in the interior environment might,

for example, globally change the gains of control loops
and the interconnection strengths among them, whether the
biochemicals are hormones released to the bloodstream in
the operations of synapses and glands or are the waste
products of bacterial communities. They might locally
affect the performance of specific types of control, given
that there are many different types of neurotransmitter. I
will not explore these possibilities, but will take a more
global, functional view. I think there is much PCT
research to be done in this area, but my suspicion is that
in this, as in so much else, Powers had a correct
fundamental insight, even if it was too much for his
editor to accept in 1973.

          Here's one suggestion: emotion and mental health

problems need not be associated with error in biochemical
control systems, as Powers had suggested. Emotions are
conscious perceptions, and perceptions are functions of
states. Contentment or aesthetic pleasure is as much an
emotion as is anger or frustration. So I would suppose
that emotional perceptions are some function of the values
of biochemical concentrations at different places in the
system, particularly of different neurotransmitters in the
neighbourhood of synapses (which might affect loop gains
and might also link emotions to reorganization).

          We have "dissociated" or "free-floating" emotions like

chronic depression or the mania of bipolar disorder, as
opposed to depression that is easily related to a state of
the external environment such as the death of a loved one
or the excitement that is easily related to a mental or
physical chase. The biochemical states may be the same
whether or not an environmental associate is evident, but
when they are associated with describable external states,
they cease being “disorders” and become “normal responses
to environmental stimuli”. In PCT terms, the emotion
becomes part of a perception of some aspect of the sensed
or imagined environment.

          Both may well be the product of closely related

processes. When the environmental states produce error and
the biochemical states produce, say, the excitement of the
chase, success in the chase corrects the environmentally
perceived error and changes the effective reference values
down the biochemical side of the control structure to
produce an emotional state we might call “happiness”,
which is then associated with the reduction of error in
the neural part of the loop. “Happiness” is often
associated with solving difficult problems, of which a
chase is an example.

          When we experience an emotional state that we don't

want, we might consciously ask ourselves whether there is
an external environmental reason for feeling that way, or
whether it is a purely internal error that needs
correction (“planning in imagination”). Whether we can do
anything about it depends on whether our reorganization
and the current environment provide us with the means to
change the amount of internal error – to alter the
biochemical environment so that the associated
non-conscious perception approaches its reference value.
Perhaps waiting for a transient effect to dissipate,
perhaps through biochemical processes, might be
sufficient. Since the nervous system works faster than the
biochemical loops as a rule, waiting might be a generic
way of avoiding introducing error into a system by too
rapid action to fix a problem that might fix itself.

          If there does not seem to be an environmental reason

for feeling an emotion we don’t want to feel, and the
error does not seem to be dissipating by waiting, then we
might ask whether some action on internal variables by way
of diet, exercise, or as a last resort, drugs, might work.
But it might also be reasonable to suggest that since
biochemical variables are assumed also to be “intrinsic
variables” with genetically influenced reference values,
consciously perceived emotions might also be an aspect of
reorganization, whether or not reorganization is itself a
control process.

Martin

That’s a relief! I’m striving for parsimony. Very helpful when you are a therapist and two goals are all you can manage at a time!

···

On 2018/05/2 1:00 PM, Warren Mansell
wrote:

    I prefer chronic unresolved perceptual conflict in higher

level control systems as an explanation to this speculative
biochemical idea any day! (Powers, 1960 onwards)…

    On 2 May 2018, at 17:16, Joh Orengo <joh.orengo@protonmail.com        >

wrote:

[Joh Orengo 05.02.18 7:00 EEST]

What a PhD dissertation this would make, Martin.

Thanks for the references. I’ll look them up.

Joh

Sent with ProtonMail Secure Email.

������� Original Message �������

On May 2, 2018 6:44 PM, Martin Taylor <mmt-csg@mmtaylor.net >
wrote:

[Martin Taylor

[Joh Orengo 29.04.18 2:36 EEST]

            ... My question is, can PCT be extended, or what have

you, to address these issues surrounding emotion that
you and others have brought up?

Probably. Here’s my own take on it.

          This is highly speculative, but as Chapter 17 of

Powers (2005) shows, he was not averse to speculating on
his own account. Incidentally, Powers states that he
wanted this chapter to be in the 1973 edition, but his
editor insisted on its removal.

"* Not too sharply, I am afraid, but most
tantalizingly, a picture begins to form of a second
hierarchy of control that splits off from the behavioral
control systems at about order two or three; this other
branch is concerned with the sensing and control of
quantities derived from sensors and from chemical
messengers throughout the body. … the effect is to
produce patterns of feeling states that arise as the
biochemical balances in the body change in response to
the commands.* * [And just before the start of the above] “The whole
system is utterly fascinating, a multileveled system
that begins in the brain and continues down – who knows
how far? Perhaps the first-order systems in the
biochemical chain are inside the cells themselves,
throughout the body.”*

Powers (2005) p258-9

          I might add to the end of the second passage "as well

as in the microbiome, the ecologies of micro-organisms
that outnumber our cells by an order of magnitude and that
produce and use a flood of chemicals in which our cells
are bathed."

          In the last few years much research has shown how the

microbiome may greatly influence our mental well-being in
many ways (e.g., Deans 2016, Flowers and Ellingrod 2015,
Kaplan Rucklidge and Rolijn, 2015, Sharon et al. 2016), up
to the level of mental disorders such as autism (e.g. Kang
et al. 2103, Mulle Sharpe and Cubells 2013, Vuoung and
Hsiao 2017), schizophrenia (Dickerson, Severance and
Yolken 2017, Kanji et al. 2018, Castro-Nallar et al.
2015), depression and bipolar disorder (Dickerson,
Severance and Yolken 2017), and perhaps Alzheimer’s
(Kohler et al. 2016, Shoemark and Allen, 2015). These
mental “disorders� are distressing, but to conduct a PCT
analysis of them is far beyond my competence.
Nevertheless, I can follow Powers in suggesting a possible
place for emotion in PCT. [I’m not including the references themselves here, but you can get them from Google Scholar if you want to follow up. They aren’t PCT-related, other than as evidence that the microbiome does affect emption and mental well-being].

          We might start with the fact that there exists a loop

in the generic sense between the neural system and the
complicated system of interacting hormones, enzymes,
neurotransmitter and other biochemicals. Synaptic activity
releases neurotransmitters into the surrounding medium,
though most of it is usually resorbed. Glands secrete and
release their various biochemicals on neural command, and
the biochemical environment strongly influences how
neurons act and interact. So there is an interior
biochemical environment for neural output and input just
as there is for physical output by way of muscles to the
environment outside the organism’s skin and input from
that exterior environment by way of sensors. We might
consider glands as the equivalent of muscles, and perhaps
there are different neural pathways that are specially
sensitive to variations in particular biochemicals that
might act as sensors.

          Biochemists already know of many homeostatic loops in

many organisms. A homeostatic loop is a negative feedback
loop with N stages. Each “stage” could be something like
the concentration of a particular biochemical, produced
from the interactions of two other biochemicals, one that
is the previous stage of the loop and one coming from
outside the loop. The one from outside can act as a
reference signal, a disturbance signal, or both at the
same time, a reference for the preceding stage, a
disturbance for the following stage, and a mixture of both
for intervening stages around the loop.

          The biochemicals in the interior environment might,

for example, globally change the gains of control loops
and the interconnection strengths among them, whether the
biochemicals are hormones released to the bloodstream in
the operations of synapses and glands or are the waste
products of bacterial communities. They might locally
affect the performance of specific types of control, given
that there are many different types of neurotransmitter. I
will not explore these possibilities, but will take a more
global, functional view. I think there is much PCT
research to be done in this area, but my suspicion is that
in this, as in so much else, Powers had a correct
fundamental insight, even if it was too much for his
editor to accept in 1973.

          Here's one suggestion: emotion and mental health

problems need not be associated with error in biochemical
control systems, as Powers had suggested. Emotions are
conscious perceptions, and perceptions are functions of
states. Contentment or aesthetic pleasure is as much an
emotion as is anger or frustration. So I would suppose
that emotional perceptions are some function of the values
of biochemical concentrations at different places in the
system, particularly of different neurotransmitters in the
neighbourhood of synapses (which might affect loop gains
and might also link emotions to reorganization).

          We have "dissociated" or "free-floating" emotions like

chronic depression or the mania of bipolar disorder, as
opposed to depression that is easily related to a state of
the external environment such as the death of a loved one
or the excitement that is easily related to a mental or
physical chase. The biochemical states may be the same
whether or not an environmental associate is evident, but
when they are associated with describable external states,
they cease being “disorders” and become “normal responses
to environmental stimuli”. In PCT terms, the emotion
becomes part of a perception of some aspect of the sensed
or imagined environment.

          Both may well be the product of closely related

processes. When the environmental states produce error and
the biochemical states produce, say, the excitement of the
chase, success in the chase corrects the environmentally
perceived error and changes the effective reference values
down the biochemical side of the control structure to
produce an emotional state we might call “happiness”,
which is then associated with the reduction of error in
the neural part of the loop. “Happiness” is often
associated with solving difficult problems, of which a
chase is an example.

          When we experience an emotional state that we don't

want, we might consciously ask ourselves whether there is
an external environmental reason for feeling that way, or
whether it is a purely internal error that needs
correction (“planning in imagination”). Whether we can do
anything about it depends on whether our reorganization
and the current environment provide us with the means to
change the amount of internal error – to alter the
biochemical environment so that the associated
non-conscious perception approaches its reference value.
Perhaps waiting for a transient effect to dissipate,
perhaps through biochemical processes, might be
sufficient. Since the nervous system works faster than the
biochemical loops as a rule, waiting might be a generic
way of avoiding introducing error into a system by too
rapid action to fix a problem that might fix itself.

          If there does not seem to be an environmental reason

for feeling an emotion we don’t want to feel, and the
error does not seem to be dissipating by waiting, then we
might ask whether some action on internal variables by way
of diet, exercise, or as a last resort, drugs, might work.
But it might also be reasonable to suggest that since
biochemical variables are assumed also to be “intrinsic
variables” with genetically influenced reference values,
consciously perceived emotions might also be an aspect of
reorganization, whether or not reorganization is itself a
control process.

Martin