# Enemies

**URL:** <http://discourse.iapct.org/t/enemies/3936>\
**Category:** CSG2003\
**Created:** [December 18, 2003, 12:26am UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/enemies/3936 "2003-12-18T00:26:59Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 20\
**Page:** 1

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Kenneth\_Kitzke\_Value](http://discourse.iapct.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/k/bc79bd/32.png) [@Kenneth\_Kitzke\_Value](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/Kenneth_Kitzke_Value)\
**Post date:** [December 18, 2003, 12:26am UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/enemies/3936/1 "2003-12-18T00:26:59Z")

</div>

[From Kenny Kitzke (2003.12.17)]

\<Bill Williams 15 December 2003 8:00 PM CST\>

\<to Marc, and CSGnet folk,

Earlier in the sequence of the “Congratulations” thread, I suggested that from a control theory perspective, adopting the perception that someone or some group was an enemy was probably not a good idea.\>

Hi, Bill W. I apologize for not replying to a number of your posts. This was not a sign of me being an enemy of yours. They were worthy. I have wanted to reply, and even saved a few posts for reply, but they are so old now, the thread is gone! I just got busy trying to reduce other larger errors in my life. I hope you will understand and forgive me.

I look at this a bit differently. I would suspect that most people adopt a reference for having zero enemies. This would be a good idea from a control theory or any perspective regarding relationships.

If a person or group is perceived to be becoming your enemy, you would act to try to alleviate that circumstance. You might for example test for that variable by discussions offering explanations, apologies and even concessions regarding your behavior to try to restore friendship.

Failing such action to successfully persuade a real or potential enemy to become a friend, having a reference for people or groups as an enemy would allow you to be preventive and cautious when an enemy draws near. Seeing an undeterred enemy threatening your safety or freedom may leave one with a choice of flight or fight to avoid the error.

So, it is not so much having references for relational variables like friends or enemies for which you control that is undesirable, it is more that perceived enemies themselves are not advantageous.

\<I also suggested that identifying “enemies” appeared to be a characteristic common to fundamentalists of various persuasions.\>

Religion can certainly be a source of reference perceptions for people as “enemies.” Islam, for example, teaches its fundamental adherents that Christians and Jews are its enemies worthy of death.

But, there are many such sources for gaining enemy references. Politics and governmental leaders certainly produce as many enemy refereces as religion and often with the intent of killing people and groups of people. In business and in sports, competitors are similar to enemies although harm short of murder is the norm there (usually).

I think there is a phenomena where you can perceive someone as your enemy based upon how you perceive their actions, when their intent was not hostile toward you. Should you wrongfully perceive a person as an enemy, your own actions may help create an adversarial relationship with the supposed enemy. You even look for actions by the other person or group that justify your perception of them as your enemy. So, it seems there is a self-fulfilling tendency to make enemies unnecessarily.

I can see why a person who is PCT aware might be more likely to avoid such incorrect perceptions just by testing for relational hostility. It that is where you were headed, I can agree.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Bill\_Williams1](http://discourse.iapct.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/b/73ab20/32.png) [@Bill\_Williams1](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/Bill_Williams1)\
**Post date:** [December 18, 2003, 5:47am UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/enemies/3936/2 "2003-12-18T05:47:58Z")

</div>

[From Bill Williams 17 December 2003 11:11 PM CST]

Kenny,

I wasn't feeling neglected as a result of your not having replied to a message of mine in what is by now an old thread.

In the recent discussion I think I attempted to indicate when I used the term "fundamentalist" that I don't think the term is altogether useful. The meaning that the term has assumed in current useage it seems to me is in some ways upside down and backwards from what I think it should mean. And, anyway the whole issue of religious belief and the meaning of belief is a confused and difficult question. You don't seem at all touchy about such issues as long as you perceive that the other person is on the whole well meaning.

But, you say,

Religion can certainly be a source of reference perceptions for people as  
"enemies." Islam, for example, teaches its fundamental adherents that Christians and Jews are its enemies worthy of death.

The Islamic fundamentalist I've been talking to claims that the Koran strictly regulates the treatment of unbelievers, and "people of the book." According to him a Christian or Jew can live in an Islamic society live well and expect to be treated respectfully. As I understand it the treatment accorded unbelievers is different that that which regulates the status of "people of the book." And, there is no question that to be a full participant in an Islamic society that you must be a believer in "the one true God." However, it wouldn't surprize me if there were Islamic sects in which outsiders are treated poorly.

I've found it intresting talking to this Islamic fellow. Sometimes "interesting" isn't quite the right word for it, "stunned" is closer to the effect upon me of some extra-ordinarily candid disclosures. Not any more stunning, I will say, than the effect of realizing that people I thought were quite genuine Christian believers were also racists of deep conviction.

You say,

I can see why a person who is PCT aware might be more likely to avoid such  
incorrect perceptions just by testing for relational hostility. It that is  
where you were headed, I can agree.

That is what I had in mind.

Bill Williams

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Marc\_Abrams1](http://discourse.iapct.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/m/da6949/32.png) [@Marc\_Abrams1](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/Marc_Abrams1)\
**Post date:** [December 18, 2003, 5:39pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/enemies/3936/3 "2003-12-18T17:39:55Z")

</div>

from [Marc Abrams (2003.12.18.1158)]

[From Bill Williams 17 December 2003 11:11 PM CST]

> The Islamic fundamentalist I've been talking to claims that the Koran

strictly regulates the treatment of \>unbelievers, and "people of the book."  
According to him a Christian or Jew can live in an Islamic society live well

> and expect to be treated respectfully. As I understand it the treatment

accorded unbelievers is different that that \>which regulates the status of  
"people of the book." And, there is no question that to be a full  
participant in an \>Islamic society that you must be a believer in "the one  
true God." However, it wouldn't surprize me if there were \>Islamic sects in  
which outsiders are treated poorly.

Bill, this really has nothing to do with your thread, but I think from an  
historical perspective it's nice to hear and know different views.  
Throughout history, Jews have generally lived quite nicely and well among  
muslims, as eveidenced by the number of Jews living in "arab" countries  
\_prior\_ to the break up of the Ottoman Empire. Of course much had to do with  
the feelings of the reigning Caliph (A Caliph being similair in stature to  
that of the Pope) and his views at any given point in time, but overall  
things were not horrible. It wasn't until after the First World War and the  
break-up of the Ottoman Empire, the end of the Caliph's, and the begginings  
of Arab nationalism did the trouble really begin in the middle east. It was  
no coincidence that the middle east provided Hitler with a tremendous amount  
of support. The Jews were and continue to be a scapegoats for much hate.  
Unfortunately, being an anti-zionist is a pc way of being anti-semetic. If  
you know your history you could not possibly think of Israel as an  
illegitmate state, without thinking the same thing about \_EVERY\_ other  
country in the middle east, after all, \_EVERY\_ country there was a  
\_POLITICALLY\_ constructed entity of the \_20TH\_ century, except for Egypt.

Ask your friend about Dhimmi's. Ask your friend about whether a Jew who  
witnessed a murder can testify in court against a muslim accused of that  
murder? Ask your friend if Jews are allowed to enter Saudi Arabia. Ask your  
friend about the tolerance Saudi's have for Christians practicing there  
faith in public in Saudi Arabia.

> I've found it intresting talking to this Islamic fellow. Sometimes

"interesting" isn't quite the right word for it, \>"stunned" is closer to the  
effect upon me of some extra-ordinarily candid disclosures. Not any more  
stunning, I will \>say, than the effect of realizing that people I thought  
were quite genuine Christian believers were also racists of \>deep  
conviction.

Bill, It \_always\_ takes two to tango. Whatever my beliefs might be, whatever  
fantasy's I might have, are meaningless until, and unless, I actually try to  
realize them. Until people start checking and understanding their  
perceptions, we are all headed for trouble. When you perceive things  
differently, your goals and aspirations will follow. If I perceive myself  
capable of doing certain things, I will make goals in accordance with that,  
likewise if I perceive certain restrictions, my goals would or should follow  
suit.

Marc

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Bruce\_Gregory4](http://discourse.iapct.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/b/7feea3/32.png) [@Bruce\_Gregory4](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/Bruce_Gregory4)\
**Post date:** [December 18, 2003, 6:37pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/enemies/3936/4 "2003-12-18T18:37:41Z")

</div>

[From Bruce Gregory (2003.12.18.1335)]

> Marc Abrams (2003.12.18.1158)
> 
> Bill, It \_always\_ takes two to tango. Whatever my beliefs might be,  
> whatever  
> fantasy's I might have, are meaningless until, and unless, I actually  
> try to  
> realize them. Until people start checking and understanding their  
> perceptions, we are all headed for trouble. When you perceive things  
> differently, your goals and aspirations will follow. If I perceive  
> myself  
> capable of doing certain things, I will make goals in accordance with  
> that,  
> likewise if I perceive certain restrictions, my goals would or should  
> follow  
> suit.

Let me respectfully differ. As far as I know, our goals determine how  
we control our perceptions. If your goals change, what you pay  
attention to changes and, effectively, what you perceive changes. If  
the Jews and the Arabs had common goals, I am confident that they could  
resolve their differences.

Bruce Gregory

"Everything that needs to be said has already been said. But since no  
one was listening, everything must be said again."

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Andre Gide

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Marc\_Abrams1](http://discourse.iapct.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/m/da6949/32.png) [@Marc\_Abrams1](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/Marc_Abrams1)\
**Post date:** [December 18, 2003, 7:31pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/enemies/3936/5 "2003-12-18T19:31:34Z")

</div>

from [Marc Abrams (2003.12.18.1408)]

> [From Bruce Gregory (2003.12.18.1335)]

> Let me respectfully differ. As far as I know, our goals determine how  
> we control our perceptions. If your goals change, what you pay  
> attention to changes and, effectively, what you perceive changes. If  
> the Jews and the Arabs had common goals, I am confident that they could  
> resolve their differences.

No question. Having 'common' goals would be helpful. The question then  
becomes \_what\_ goals can they have in common? If someone does not perceive  
the other as having a right to exist, how would a change in goals help? What  
has to change is the perception one has of the 'rights' someone else is  
entitled to. How can I possibly set a 'goal' of peace, when I perceive them  
as not being entitled to it. What 'goal' would I change for that? Reference  
conditions are imaginations of the way we would like perceptions to be.  
Those reference conditions are based on a number of things, things which I  
will get into in my post in the next few days in answer to Bill's request  
and proposal (and yes, 'error' plays a huge part as well). Reference  
conditions could be nothing more than 'old' stored imagined perceptions. So  
to say that a change in perceptions cannot effectuate change, I think is  
inaccurate, and again Chris Argyris has a very large body of work saying  
that a change in perceptions (going up the ladder, MOL) is just the tonic to  
get people to 'see' how they are viewing the world and what might need  
fixin'.

Marc

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Bruce\_Gregory4](http://discourse.iapct.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/b/7feea3/32.png) [@Bruce\_Gregory4](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/Bruce_Gregory4)\
**Post date:** [December 18, 2003, 8:31pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/enemies/3936/6 "2003-12-18T20:31:26Z")

</div>

[From Bruce Gregory (2003.12.18.1530)]

> Marc Abrams (2003.12.18.1408)
> 
> No question. Having 'common' goals would be helpful. The question then  
> becomes \_what\_ goals can they have in common? If someone does not  
> perceive  
> the other as having a right to exist, how would a change in goals  
> help? What  
> has to change is the perception one has of the 'rights' someone else is  
> entitled to.

Do you mean to say that beliefs are perceptions? This is not my  
experience.

Bruce Gregory

"Everything that needs to be said has already been said. But since no  
one was listening, everything must be said again."

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Andre Gide

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Marc\_Abrams1](http://discourse.iapct.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/m/da6949/32.png) [@Marc\_Abrams1](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/Marc_Abrams1)\
**Post date:** [December 18, 2003, 8:59pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/enemies/3936/7 "2003-12-18T20:59:27Z")

</div>

from [Marc Abrams (2003.12.18.1545)]

> [From Bruce Gregory (2003.12.18.1530)]

> Do you mean to say that beliefs are perceptions? This is not my  
> experience.

In a way, yes. All 'reference conditions' are in part, old perceptions. If  
you change the perception, the stored memory, or imagination you have about  
that concept will also change. For example, if I perceive and attribute to a  
people a certain characteristic, my 'goals' with regard to those people and  
beliefs about those people will be affected by my attributions. My  
attributions are perceptions I have about others, they are not goals. In  
order for me to change a goal, and in order for it to be an effective  
change, I must change my perceptions, both real and imagined first. My  
'goals' are imagined states I would like to see my perceptions in. If I  
change my 'goals' without changing my perceptions, than those 'goals' were  
not really 'reference conditions' for perceptions and as such were simply  
imaginations in the first place, not something I was actually controlling  
for. That is not to say that those imaginings were not in part real or  
important, just that they were not being controlled for.

Marc

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Bill\_Powers](http://discourse.iapct.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/b/a183cd/32.png) [@Bill\_Powers](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/Bill_Powers)\
**Post date:** [December 18, 2003, 9:14pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/enemies/3936/8 "2003-12-18T21:14:44Z")

</div>

[From Bill Powers (2003.12.18.1414 MST)]

Bruce Gregory (2003.12.18.1530) --

> Do you mean to say that beliefs are perceptions? This is not my  
> experience.

Then how do you know you have any beliefs?

Best,

Bill P.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Bruce\_Gregory4](http://discourse.iapct.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/b/7feea3/32.png) [@Bruce\_Gregory4](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/Bruce_Gregory4)\
**Post date:** [December 18, 2003, 9:47pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/enemies/3936/9 "2003-12-18T21:47:58Z")

</div>

[From Bruce Gregory 92003.12.18.1647)]

> Bill Powers (2003.12.18.1414 MST)
> 
> Bruce Gregory (2003.12.18.1530) --
> 
> > Do you mean to say that beliefs are perceptions? This is not my  
> > experience.
> 
> Then how do you know you have any beliefs?

I don't. Or to put it another way, I only know that I assign certain  
truth values to certain statements. (The value "T" to the statement  
"The sun will rise tomorrow morning.") This is the extent of my  
perception of that "belief." As far as I know, this belief is  
distinct from my perception of the sun rising.

Bruce Gregory

Everything that needs to be said has already been said. But since no  
one was listening, everything must be said again."

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Andre Gide

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Marken\_Richard](http://discourse.iapct.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/m/e19b73/32.png) [@Marken\_Richard](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/Marken_Richard)\
**Post date:** [December 18, 2003, 9:54pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/enemies/3936/10 "2003-12-18T21:54:32Z")

</div>

[From Rick Marken (2003.12.18.1400)]

Marc Abrams (2003.12.18.1408)--

> No question. Having 'common' goals would be helpful. The question then  
> becomes \_what\_ goals can they have in common? If someone does not perceive  
> the other as having a right to exist, how would a change in goals help?

I think what you are describing is not a difference in perceptions but a  
difference in goals. The perceptual variable in question is the existence  
of the state of Israel, which can be in two states: exist and not exist. The  
expressed goal of some Palestinians is that this perception be in the state  
"not exist" and the expressed goals of nearly all Jews (except some very  
Orthodox) is to have this perception in the state "exist". It's the  
difference in goals regarding the state of this perceptual variable that  
creates the conflict, not a difference in how the parties perceive the  
situation.

I think conflicts like this are seen (especially by the participants) as a  
difference in perception because people are imagining a perceptual variable  
in different goal states. It seems like the Israel-Palestinian conflict  
results from a difference in perception because the goal perceptions of the  
parties \_are\_ different. But both parties actually perceive the situation  
(the existence of the state of the Israel) the same way; the Israeli's see  
that a state of Israel exists and the Palestinians see that too. The  
conflict is over what the state of that perception should be. It's a  
conflict of goals, not perceptions.

> Reference  
> conditions are imaginations of the way we would like perceptions to be.

Reference conditions are specifications for the state in which a perceptual  
variable \_should\_ be. According to HPCT, references can be played back  
through the perceptual input functions so that what is imagined is exactly  
what is wanted.

> Reference  
> conditions could be nothing more than 'old' stored imagined perceptions. So  
> to say that a change in perceptions cannot effectuate change, I think is  
> inaccurate

No one is saying that a change in perceptions cannot effectuate change. Many  
things would change drastically if you changed the perceptual input function  
to a control system. It could even lead to a solution to conflict, if the  
perceptual function were changed so that the perceptual computation were  
based on different environmental degrees of freedom than those involved in  
the conflict.

> , and again Chris Argyris has a very large body of work saying  
> that a change in perceptions (going up the ladder, MOL)

The term "change in perceptions" is ambiguous. It could mean a change in the  
perceptual input function, say going from p = k1s1+k2s2 to p = k3s3+k3s4. I  
think this kind of change in perception is very unlikely and would require  
significant reorganization of all other systems in the hierarchy. But  
"change in perception" could also mean "going up a level" where what is  
changed is one's awareness of the perceptions under control. This kind of  
change in perception happens all the time. For example, right now I have  
changed from being aware of what I am writing to why I'm writing it. This is  
the kind of change in perception-- probably better called a change in  
\_perspective\_ -- that is the major approach to conflict resolution in HPCT.

> is just the tonic to  
> get people to 'see' how they are viewing the world and what might need  
> fixin'.

Yes. I bet he's talking about something more like the MOL change in  
perspective than a more fundamental change in perception itself.

Best

Rick

> **···**
>
> --  
> Richard S. Marken  
> MindReadings.com  
> Home: 310 474 0313  
> Cell: 310 729 1400

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Marc\_Abrams1](http://discourse.iapct.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/m/da6949/32.png) [@Marc\_Abrams1](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/Marc_Abrams1)\
**Post date:** [December 18, 2003, 10:04pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/enemies/3936/11 "2003-12-18T22:04:01Z")

</div>

from [Marc Abrams (2003.12.18.1702)]

Rick, First we need to decide what a 'reference condition' is. I say it's an  
old imagined perception. What do you say?

Marc

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Marken\_Richard](http://discourse.iapct.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/m/e19b73/32.png) [@Marken\_Richard](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/Marken_Richard)\
**Post date:** [December 18, 2003, 10:19pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/enemies/3936/12 "2003-12-18T22:19:34Z")

</div>

[From Rick Marken (2003.12.18.1420)]

Marc Abrams (2003.12.18.1702)

> Rick, First we need to decide what a 'reference condition' is. I say it's an  
> old imagined perception. What do you say?

I think of the \_reference condition\_ as the reference state of the  
controlled perceptual variable. In a thermostat temperature controller that  
is set to keep the temperature at 72 degrees, the reference condition is 72  
degrees. The temperature is rarely in that condition exactly so the  
reference condition is not necessarily the actual state of the controlled  
variable.

The \_reference signal\_ is the variable in a control system that specifies  
the reference condition of the controlled variable.

Best

Rick

> **···**
>
> --  
> Richard S. Marken  
> MindReadings.com  
> Home: 310 474 0313  
> Cell: 310 729 1400

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Martin\_Taylor2](http://discourse.iapct.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/m/b4bc9f/32.png) [@Martin\_Taylor2](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/Martin_Taylor2)\
**Post date:** [December 18, 2003, 10:27pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/enemies/3936/13 "2003-12-18T22:27:30Z")

</div>

[Martin Taylor 2003.12.18.1725 EST]

> [From Bruce Gregory 92003.12.18.1647)]
> 
> > Bill Powers (2003.12.18.1414 MST)
> > 
> > Bruce Gregory (2003.12.18.1530) --
> > 
> > > Do you mean to say that beliefs are perceptions? This is not my  
> > > experience.
> > 
> > Then how do you know you have any beliefs?
> 
> I don't. Or to put it another way, I only know that I assign certain  
> truth values to certain statements. (The value "T" to the statement  
> "The sun will rise tomorrow morning.") This is the extent of my  
> perception of that "belief." As far as I know, this belief is  
> distinct from my perception of the sun rising.

As is the perception that my hand approaches my glass distinct from  
my perception of my hand and of my glass.

Surely my belief about anything is a perception of the way the world  
works in respect of that thing? My "belief about" is anly a way of  
saying my "perception of the validity of", isn't it?

Martin

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Bruce\_Gregory4](http://discourse.iapct.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/b/7feea3/32.png) [@Bruce\_Gregory4](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/Bruce_Gregory4)\
**Post date:** [December 18, 2003, 10:38pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/enemies/3936/14 "2003-12-18T22:38:02Z")

</div>

[From Bruce Gregory (2003.12.18.1737)]

> Martin Taylor 2003.12.18.1725 EST
> 
> As is the perception that my hand approaches my glass distinct from  
> my perception of my hand and of my glass.
> 
> Surely my belief about anything is a perception of the way the world  
> works in respect of that thing? My "belief about" is anly a way of  
> saying my "perception of the validity of", isn't it?

Are you agreeing with me, as I perceive, or are you disagreeing with me  
as you seem to perceive?

Bruce Gregory

Everything that needs to be said has already been said. But since no  
one was listening, everything must be said again."

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Andre Gide

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Marc\_Abrams1](http://discourse.iapct.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/m/da6949/32.png) [@Marc\_Abrams1](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/Marc_Abrams1)\
**Post date:** [December 18, 2003, 10:44pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/enemies/3936/15 "2003-12-18T22:44:01Z")

</div>

from [Marc Abrams (2003.12.18.1736)]

> [From Rick Marken (2003.12.18.1420)]

> I think of the \_reference condition\_ as the reference state of the  
> controlled perceptual variable.

Rick, Rick, Rick. I \_asked\_ how you defined a \_REFERENCE STATE\_. \_NOT\_, a  
controlled perceptual variable. So I will ask again, How do you define a  
'reference condiditon'? What is it? This is \_not\_ a trick question.

Do you agree with my definition? If not, what do you think it is?

Marc

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Marc\_Abrams1](http://discourse.iapct.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/m/da6949/32.png) [@Marc\_Abrams1](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/Marc_Abrams1)\
**Post date:** [December 18, 2003, 10:45pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/enemies/3936/16 "2003-12-18T22:45:29Z")

</div>

from [Marc Abrams (2003.12.18.1744)]

> [Martin Taylor 2003.12.18.1725 EST]

> Surely my belief about anything is a perception of the way the world  
> works in respect of that thing? My "belief about" is anly a way of  
> saying my "perception of the validity of", isn't it?

I think so.

Marc

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Bruce\_Gregory4](http://discourse.iapct.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/b/7feea3/32.png) [@Bruce\_Gregory4](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/Bruce_Gregory4)\
**Post date:** [December 18, 2003, 10:48pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/enemies/3936/17 "2003-12-18T22:48:07Z")

</div>

[From Bruce Gregory (2003.12.18.1746)]

> Rick Marken (2003.12.18.1400)
> 
> I think what you are describing is not a difference in perceptions but  
> a  
> difference in goals.

I share your view and appreciate your analysis.

Bruce Gregory

> "Everything that needs to be said has already been said. But since no  
> one was listening, everything must be said again."

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Andre Gide

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Bill\_Powers](http://discourse.iapct.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/b/a183cd/32.png) [@Bill\_Powers](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/Bill_Powers)\
**Post date:** [December 18, 2003, 11:11pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/enemies/3936/18 "2003-12-18T23:11:21Z")

</div>

[From Bill Powers (2003.12.18.1610 MST)]

Martin Taylor 2003.12.18.1725 EST--

> Surely my belief about anything is a perception of the way the world  
> works in respect of that thing? My "belief about" is anly a way of  
> saying my "perception of the validity of", isn't it?

Thank you, Martin. You appear to agree with my definition of perception:  
anything you experience.

Best,

Bill P.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Marken\_Richard](http://discourse.iapct.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/m/e19b73/32.png) [@Marken\_Richard](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/Marken_Richard)\
**Post date:** [December 18, 2003, 11:13pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/enemies/3936/19 "2003-12-18T23:13:30Z")

</div>

[From Rick Marken (2003.12.18.1515)]

Marc Abrams (2003.12.18.1736)--

> Rick Marken (2003.12.18.1420)--
> 
> > I think of the \_reference condition\_ as the reference state of the  
> > controlled perceptual variable.
> 
> Rick, Rick, Rick. I \_asked\_ how you defined a \_REFERENCE STATE\_. \_NOT\_, a  
> controlled perceptual variable. So I will ask again, How do you define a  
> 'reference condiditon'? What is it? This is \_not\_ a trick question.

OK. I'll try again.

A reference condition is that state of the perceptual variable that requires  
no change in the actions of the control system. It's the state of the  
perceptual variable that is "correct" from the point of view of the control  
system.

> Do you agree with my definition?

No.

> If not, what do you think it is?

I know what a "reference condition" is, in PCT. I'm doing my best to try to  
explain it to you. This is pretty basic stuff. Why not look up "reference  
condition" in B:CP and see if my definition agrees with Bill's? I suspect  
it's pretty close, though I don't have a copy of B:CP handy to confirm that.

Best

Rick

> **···**
>
> --  
> Richard S. Marken  
> MindReadings.com  
> Home: 310 474 0313  
> Cell: 310 729 1400

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Bill\_Powers](http://discourse.iapct.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/b/a183cd/32.png) [@Bill\_Powers](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/Bill_Powers)\
**Post date:** [December 18, 2003, 11:29pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/enemies/3936/20 "2003-12-18T23:29:59Z")

</div>

[From Bill Powers (2003.12.18.1619 MST)]

I know what a "reference condition" is, in PCT. I'm doing my best to try to

> explain it to you. This is pretty basic stuff. Why not look up "reference  
> condition" in B:CP and see if my definition agrees with Bill's? I suspect  
> it's pretty close, though I don't have a copy of B:CP handy to confirm that.

Best to confirm before writing.

The term "reference signal," as you say, refers to part of the model of a  
control system, and is not observable from outside the organism.

"Reference level" and "reference condition" have to do with controlled  
variables: that is, the states of environmental variables that an outside  
observer deduces are being controlled by another control system. The term  
"level" refers to a quantitative measure on a scale. "Condition" is used  
when it's not appropriate to think of a continuous numerical scale, as in  
controlling the roundness of a ball, or that figure in Demo 1 made of four  
lines jointed together, or a particular taste.

Reference conditions or levels are tested by verifying that for every  
disturbance tending to alter them, the supposed controller applies an equal  
and opposite influence to the same variable, holding it near a specific  
level, or condition, or form, or state, and returning it to that state  
after a significant perturbation.

See Glossary in B:CP. I still stick to those definitions. A reference level  
or condition refers to the state to which actions restore environmental  
variables. Both refer to what someone else can see me controlling, or to  
what I can see someone else controlling.

Best,

Bill P.

[Next page](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/enemies/3936.md?page=2)