# Enemies **URL:** \ **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:** 3

**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 19, 2003, 8:51am UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/enemies/3936/41 "2003-12-19T08:51:40Z")

Marc, Like I've said, my engagement in all this is rather casual. So, I know nothing at all about this "Dhimmi" business. I was planning to surft the Webb and see if I could find out what it involves. bill ---

**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 19, 2003, 1:03pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/enemies/3936/42 "2003-12-19T13:03:53Z")

[From Bruce Gregory (2003.12.19.0803)] > Marc Abrams (2003.12.19.0122) > > > [From Rick Marken (2003.12.18.2120)] > > > I think I could understand this better if you could suggest a > > demonstration of this phenomenon. > > I heartily agree. As I said in an earlier post, I'm not prepared yet > to go > 'public'. Bill was nice enough to suggest an outline I should follow > if I > wanted serious consideration to be given to my ideas, I agree > completely, > and I'm currently working on it. I don't want to post a part of it > because > everything is very much entwined and I am not prepared to cover all the > bases yet, so please have some patience. Maybe Martin or Bill can come > up > with something you can sink your teeth into right now. I can't. I can > only > give you words. I think Rick would agree that words are just fine as a start. What is the \_experience\_ that you are trying to explain with your nascent model? if you changed your perception of Moslems, what would that be like? In what ways would you perceive a Moslem on the street differently than you do now? Would his aura change color? 😉 Bruce Gregory "Everything that needs to be said has already been said. But since no one was listening, everything must be said again." Andre Gide ---

**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 19, 2003, 3:34pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/enemies/3936/43 "2003-12-19T15:34:30Z")

from [Marc Abrams (2003.12.19.1012) > [From Bruce Gregory (2003.12.19.0803)] > I think Rick would agree that words are just fine as a start. What is > the \_experience\_ that you are trying to explain with your nascent > model? As I have stated many times, I \_DO NOT\_ currently have a model. I have some nascent \_insights\_ into a possible model but nothing concrete. I still believe that this will be an extension/expansion of the HPCT model as it currently exists, but I am taking Bill P's advice to heart because I believe it will help diffuse any acrimony and help keep the focus on the ideas presented, so your out of luck kiddo. 🙂 I won't bite. If you want to talk about it, go right ahead, If you find it impossible to think of ways to change your perception, try the MOL. You might not change anything doing it, but you'll be aware of \_what\_ you might be able to change. btw, some of my best friends are Moslems. 🙂 (I use a lot of car service, and most of the drivers here are Pakistani's, and we've had more than one interesting conversation :-)) > if you changed your perception of Moslems, what would that be > like? I don't have a perception of 'Moslems'. I \_do\_ have one of \_Islamists\_. If you decided tomorrow you wanted to be rabbi, what would that be like? > In what ways would you perceive a Moslem on the street > differently than you do now? Would his aura change color? 😉 How would I 'know' a Moslem on the street from an Islamist? Why would I perceive him/her any differently than anyone else? Marc ---

**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 19, 2003, 4:03pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/enemies/3936/44 "2003-12-19T16:03:25Z")

[From Bruce Gregory (2003.12.19.1102)] > Marc Abrams (2003.12.19.1012) > > How would I 'know' a Moslem on the street from an Islamist? Why would I > perceive him/her any differently than anyone else? I have no idea. You said that until one changed the way they perceive Islamists it would be impossible to change one's goals. All I am trying to do is to figure out what this means. if it doesn't mean anything, I'll gladly let the matter drop. Bruce Gregory "Everything that needs to be said has already been said. But since no one was listening, everything must be said again." Andre Gide ---

**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 19, 2003, 4:12pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/enemies/3936/45 "2003-12-19T16:12:42Z")

[From Bruce Gregory (2003.12.19.1112)] > [Martin Taylor 2003.12.19.0009 EST] > > If you are talking about a belief, maybe you observe something that > is an input into the function that defines the nature of the belief. To the extent that beliefs are perceptions, they are not perceptions of the physical world. Nor, apparently can they be manipulated in the fashion that objects can be manipulated. Beliefs are thoughts. they are formulations in language. (You can say that I believe that the wall is solid. If you use the term in that way, animals as well as humans have beliefs. I am using the term to refer to what we normally call beliefs, e.g., the universe is governed by universal laws.) No matter what you think of Saddam Hussein, you see pretty much the same guy as I do. We are probably reminded of different things when we look at him, and these remindings are perceptions, but I have no reason to claim that we perceive him significantly differently. Bruce Gregory "Everything that needs to be said has already been said. But since no one was listening, everything must be said again." Andre Gide ---

**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 19, 2003, 4:36pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/enemies/3936/46 "2003-12-19T16:36:10Z")

from [Marc Abrams (2003.12.19.1123)] > [From Bill Powers(2003.12.18.2001 MST)] > I don't know if this term "signal" carries the right meaning for people who > haven't been doing electronic stuff most of their lives as I have. In the > sense I mean, there are no "signals" in the environment. Let me try to > explain this usage. > That is why I say "perceptual signal." I mean the neural current flowing in > an axon, which carries only the feeblest amount of energy, but serves to > carry a measurement from one place to another in the nervous system. > > I have seen remarks here and there which might indicate that someone is not > aware of this usage, and is thinking that a signal is like the horn that > goes off to tell golfers to seek shelter when lightning is nearby, or the > flash of white as a mule deer flicks its tail. That's an entirely different > usage of the word "signal" and is unconnected to the way I use it in PCT. Thanks Bill, This clears up my understanding of what and how you define a 'signal'. I am in agreement with you after all. I wasn't quite sure, now I am. btw, SD is adamant about this usage, and the fact that many people try to use stock and flows for the representation of 'informational' flows and this is not considered good SD modeling. That's one of the reasons I think you used 'auxiliary' variables in your Vensim models. No need for stocks and flows. Marc ---

**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 19, 2003, 5:07pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/enemies/3936/47 "2003-12-19T17:07:46Z")

from [Marc Abrams (2003.12.19.1137)] > [From Bruce Gregory (2003.12.19.1102)] > I have no idea. You said that until one changed the way they perceive > Islamists it would be impossible to change one's goals. No, I didn't say that. What I said was: from [Marc Abrams (2003.12.18.1545)] "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. I do not see the word 'impossible' here. I do see the word 'effective'. To further explain this; Your perceptions form the boundries for your imaginations, planning and goal setting. When I set a goal (you might be different) it is \_usually\_ done with perceptions of what my limitations are or might be, real and imagined with regard to attaining that goal. I could certainly change goals and not have to change any perceptions, but that is \_not\_ how it usually works for me. letr me give you an example. I am currently attending college. What if I decided tomorrow that I am no longer interested in 'getting-a-degree' but I would like to continue my education. Has my goal changed? Sure, so in order for me to succeed with my new goal of 'education-no degree' I have to plan (perceive) a way to accomplish this. Do I attend as a non matriculated student? Do I simply go on-line, pick a school, look at the curriculum, buy the text book and self-study? That all depends on how I best perceive myself in accomplishing my new goal. At least if I was really trying to be \_effective\_ it would. If I didn't reflect on the best way to accomplish my new goal, I would probably not succeed in it. Has this helped to clarify? Marc ---

**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 19, 2003, 5:18pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/enemies/3936/48 "2003-12-19T17:18:07Z")

[From Bill Powers (2003.12.19.1012 MST)] Marc Abrams (2003.12.19.1123)-- > many people try > to use stock and flows for the representation of 'informational' flows and > this is not considered good SD modeling. That's one of the reasons I think > you used 'auxiliary' variables in your Vensim models. No need for stocks and > flows. Excellent observation, and true. I didn't know there were discussions about this, but it's good that others recognize the distinction. Stocks and flows, I take it, would be used to model things in the environment where there are actual accumulations and transports of matter and energy, while auxiliary variables would be used to represent signals inside the controlling system. Thanks for the info. Best, Bill P. ---

**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 19, 2003, 5:40pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/enemies/3936/49 "2003-12-19T17:40:19Z")

from [Marc Abrams (2003.12.19.1232)] > [From Bill Powers (2003.12.19.1012 MST)] > Stocks and flows, I take it, would be used to model things in the environment where > there are actual accumulations and transports of matter and energy, while > auxiliary variables would be used to represent signals inside the > controlling system. That's it, and as you pointed out, the distinction is \_not\_ insignificant. They represent entirely different things. It's an easy trap to fall into because most people come into SD from the 'systems thinking' crowd and they are used to thinking in terms of causal loop diagrams which some automatically translate into stock -\> flow diagrams. \_That\_ is a no-no. 🙂 Marc ---

**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 19, 2003, 5:44pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/enemies/3936/50 "2003-12-19T17:44:24Z")

[From Rick Marken (2003.12.19.0930)] Bill Powers(2003.12.18.2001 MST)-- > Rick Marken (2003.12.18.1555)-- > > > But then what term do we use to refer to the state of a perceptual variable > > that requires no change in the actions of the control system? > > Good point. I think I usually say that the perceptual signal (not > perceptual variable) matches the reference signal, or that the error > (signal) is zero. I don't know if there's any way to be absolutely verbally accurate about this. I personally feel comfortable using the terms "controlled environmental variable" and "controlled perceptual variable" somewhat interchangeably. I know what you mean when you say "reference state of the controlled environmental variable" or "reference state of the controlled perceptual variable". They mean the same thing to me. In the coin game, for example, the reference state is the state of the coins that requires no corrective action. This state exists as a perception in the controller and in the observer. Both might describe this perception as the state of the environment, in which case it makes sense to call the observed pattern of coins "the reference state of the controlled environmental variable". A philosophically sophisticated controller and a PCT aware observer might also describe this perception as the state of a perceptual variable, in which case it also makes sense to call the observed pattern of coins "the reference state of the controlled perceptual variable". I agree that we should use the term "perceptual signal" to refer only to an entity in the model that is presumed to correspond to what we experience as an environmental or perceptual variable. But as a modeler I rarely have the need to talk about the reference state of the perceptual signal. I think the reference signal accounts for the observed fact that environmental (or perceptual, if you prefer to call them that) variables have reference states. So I would say that the term "reference state" refers to an observed fact -- the fact that the state of some variables are protected from disturbance. These reference states can be called environmental or perceptual states (or conditions), depending on the communicative goals of the speaker. As you suggest, I think it makes sense to call reference states the states of environmental variables when talking about them from the point of view of an observer and perceptual variables when talking about them from the point of view of a controller. Best Rick > **···** > > -- > Richard S. Marken > MindReadings.com > Home: 310 474 0313 > Cell: 310 729 1400 ---

**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 19, 2003, 6:36pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/enemies/3936/51 "2003-12-19T18:36:56Z")

[From Rick Marken (2003.12.19.1035)] Marc Abrams (2003.12.19.0122) > > Rick Marken (2003.12.18.2120)-- > > > I think I could understand this better if you could suggest a > > demonstration of this phenomenon. > > I heartily agree. As I said in an earlier post, I'm not prepared yet to go > 'public'. I can understand your not being prepared to go public with a model. But surely you can say what observations (subjective or objective) led you to say that perceptions can change "by altering the inputs either from memory or the environment". Your model -- the one that changes perceptions by altering inputs from memory to the environment -- is presumably designed to explain your observations. So what are the observations? Best Rick > **···** > > -- > Richard S. Marken > MindReadings.com > Home: 310 474 0313 > Cell: 310 729 1400 ---

**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 19, 2003, 9:54pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/enemies/3936/52 "2003-12-19T21:54:34Z")

from [Marc Abrams (2003.12.19.1634)] > [From Rick Marken (2003.12.19.1035)] > I can understand your not being prepared to go public with a model. No Rick, I'm not prepared to go public with the \_thoughts\_ I have on a potential extension or expansion of HPCT. I have no other model in mind. I thought I made that clear with my response to Bruce G and I won't discuss part of it until I'm prepared to discuss it \_all\_. I didn't say I need to have a finished or polished end product, I \_do\_ need to be able to provide some basic justifications for my position. That is only just and reasonable. Exactly what is it you don't understand? > But surely you can say what observations (subjective or objective) led you to > say that perceptions can change "by altering the inputs either from memory > or the environment. Ok, Have you heard the often repeated cliche that "Everytime I re-read this book new information is put in". Well, the same holds true for the environment. There are different aspects of the environment you might not have noticed before or have not seen in the same context (maybe you were in a different state of mind). When you combine that with what your imagination tells you that you saw the last time, you just might have new perceptions. Of course the MOL is a terrific way to alter your perceptions, it's called reflection. Something you did very nicely in your reply to Bruce Gregory in the 'Conflict thread'. > [From Rick Marken (2003.12.09.2030)] > I looked over the "Love and Hate" thread, which started with [Bruce Gregory (2003.12.07.0905)], in order to show \>Bruce examples of what I thought were his baiting. But as I read it over I could see that there was no baiting at all. \>Bruce was simply saying things that I found disturbing. I took these disturbances as being intentionally created by \>Bruce -- that he was baiting me -- and I think that was very unfair of me. It's what led to me to make the \>completely unnecessary remark at the end of the series.. Do you see how your perceptions of Bruce changed here? Do you see that your imagination was a \_central\_ contributor to your initial perceptions of Bruce 'baiting' you. It was only because you viewed the environment (the thread) again and came away with different perceptions. Your memory and imagination with regard to Bruce were altered. Exactly what are you having a difficult time with here? > Your model -- the one that changes perceptions by > altering inputs from memory to the environment -- is presumably designed to > explain your observations. So what are the observations? Why don't \_you\_ tell \_me\_? Marc ---

**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 19, 2003, 11:42pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/enemies/3936/53 "2003-12-19T23:42:16Z")

[From Rick Marken (2003.12.19.1540)] Marc Abrams (2003.12.19.1634)-- > Rick Marken (2003.12.19.1035)-- > > > But surely you can say what observations (subjective or objective) led you > > to say that perceptions can change "by altering the inputs either from > > memory or the environment. > > There are different aspects of the environment you might not > have noticed before or have not seen in the same context (maybe you were in > a different state of mind). When you combine that with what your imagination > tells you that you saw the last time, you just might have new perceptions. Thanks. That's what I wanted to know. Now I understand better, I think, why you want to include memory (and imagination and emotion) in the model of perception. I have had this same experience myself, of course, many times. I perceive the same situation in different ways at different times. I perceive what I did not see before; or find that I saw more in something then than I do now. I think one of the most dramatic examples of seeing the same objective circumstances in different ways at different times occurs with the ambiguous figure illusions, like the wife/witch illusion, where the same physical lines look at one time, like a beautiful woman and, at another, like an old hag. Once you learn to see the picture in both ways it's easy to switch from one perception to the other voluntarily. This switching is a form of control, is it not? I can control whether I am seeing the wife or the witch at any particular time. It's not easy but it can be done. Perhaps inputs from memory and imagination will, indeed, be needed to explain this phenomenon. Maybe the use of illusions in a tracking type task is the way to get at this. > Of course the MOL is a terrific way to alter your perceptions, it's called > reflection. I think the change in perception that occurs during MOL is different from the change that occurs in situations like the wife/witch. In MOL, you are seeing the same situation from a different point of view. In the ambiguous figure example, you are seeing the same situation from the same point of view, just different examples of perceptions from that point of view. For example, in an MOL change in perception you would change from seeing the wife/witch picture as an ambiguous configuration to seeing it as an illustration of a principle (of ambiguous perception). In a non-MOL change in perception you go from seeing one perception (the wife configuration) to seeing a different one of the same type (the witch configuration). > Something you did very nicely in your reply to Bruce Gregory in > the 'Conflict thread'. I don't think what happened in the "conflict thread" with Bruce was an example of either MOL or seeing the same objective situation differently. That's because I think the objective situation was somewhat different when I read Bruce's posts as part of the "conflict" thread and when I read them afterwards. The difference, I think, was the affective component of those perceptions, which were part of my perceptions of the posts when I was in the midst of the conflict but not part of those perceptions when I read the posts afterward. This, of course, is consistent with your idea that perceptions often include an emotional component. I think my own emotions became part of my perception of Bruce's posts when we were in the conflict. When I re-read Bruce's posts that emotional component was no longer present. So I perceived Bruce's posts differently during and after the conflict because the objective basis of those perceptions was different during and after the conflict. The emotional component that existed during the conflict probably led me to perceive Bruce's posts as "baiting". The absence of that component after the conflict let me see those same posts as honest challenges or questions about what PCT can explain. The conflict would probably not have escalated as it did if I had simply waited until the emotional component of my perceptions of Bruce's post had disappeared. Best regards Rick > **···** > > -- > Richard S. Marken > MindReadings.com > Home: 310 474 0313 > Cell: 310 729 1400 ---

**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 19, 2003, 11:48pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/enemies/3936/54 "2003-12-19T23:48:10Z")

[From Bruce Gregory (2003.12.19.1847)] > Marc Abrams (2003.12.19.1634) > > Do you see how your perceptions of Bruce changed here? Do you see that > your > imagination was a \_central\_ contributor to your initial perceptions of > Bruce > 'baiting' you. It was only because you viewed the environment (the > thread) > again and came away with different perceptions. Your memory and > imagination > with regard to Bruce were altered. It seems to me that Rick was successfully controlling his perception of personal integrity. Bruce Gregory "Everything that needs to be said has already been said. But since no one was listening, everything must be said again." Andre Gide ---

**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 20, 2003, 12:19am UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/enemies/3936/55 "2003-12-20T00:19:30Z")

[From Bruce Gregory (2003.12.19.1919)] > Rick Marken (2003.12.19.1540) > > I think one of the most dramatic examples of seeing the same objective > circumstances in different ways at different times occurs with the > ambiguous > figure illusions, like the wife/witch illusion, where the same physical > lines look at one time, like a beautiful woman and, at another, like > an old > hag. Once you learn to see the picture in both ways it's easy to > switch from > one perception to the other voluntarily. This switching is a form of > control, is it not? I can control whether I am seeing the wife or the > witch > at any particular time. It's not easy but it can be done. Perhaps > inputs > from memory and imagination will, indeed, be needed to explain this > phenomenon. Maybe the use of illusions in a tracking type task is the > way to > get at this. I read somewhere how to reverse to Necker cube by concentrating on one vertex or another. It seems that this illusion is based on where your attention happens to be located. I suspect that is true of the lady/hag illusion. When you discover, or are told, what to pay attention to, control is not particularly difficult. My guess is that the same approach could be taken to analyzing the "conflict" thread. Bruce Gregory "Everything that needs to be said has already been said. But since no one was listening, everything must be said again." Andre Gide ---

**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 20, 2003, 1:34am UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/enemies/3936/56 "2003-12-20T01:34:33Z")

from [Marc Abrams (2003.12.19.2011)] > [From Bruce Gregory (2003.12.19.1847)] > It seems to me that Rick was successfully controlling his perception of > personal integrity. I think that's a pretty fair point. I'd like to hear from Rick on this. To accomplish this 'new' goal, he had to change his perceptions of the situation and you. The old goal possibly was, 'being right' or 'proving you wrong'. Of course he may not be controlling for this (That is, 'personal integrity') 100% of the time, so we can't, unfortunately expect Rick, or anyone else for that matter, to reflect on past actions, and control for 'personal integrity' or its equivalent all the time, and actually, I don't think it necessary, but there \_are\_ times where it could be critical and the difference between successful or rotten communication I think the lesson to be drawn from this, at least for me, is to stop, when in the middle of, or when you become aware of a bit of conflict, or tension taking place, to see if it warrants an examination or reflection on my part. The question becomes, What am \_I\_ contributing to this problem. Do the observables match my imaginations. If not, why not? This is all the stuff that Argyris has done so successfully over the years. Someday he will come to learn that PCT is the theory underlying his 'Action Science', and as it is for all purposeful behavior. Marc ---

**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 20, 2003, 2:13am UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/enemies/3936/57 "2003-12-20T02:13:23Z")

[From Bruce Gregory (2003.12.19.2113)] > Marc Abrams (2003.12.19.2011) > > > [From Bruce Gregory (2003.12.19.1847)] > > > It seems to me that Rick was successfully controlling his perception > > of > > personal integrity. > > I think that's a pretty fair point. I'd like to hear from Rick on > this. To > accomplish this 'new' goal, he had to change his perceptions of the > situation and you. He had to change what he was paying attention to. Is that what you mean? > I think the lesson to be drawn from this, at least for me, is to stop, > when > in the middle of, or when you become aware of a bit of conflict, or > tension > taking place, to see if it warrants an examination or reflection on my > part. > The question becomes, What am \_I\_ contributing to this problem. Do the > observables match my imaginations. If not, why not? This is all the > stuff > that Argyris has done so successfully over the years. Someday he will > come > to learn that PCT is the theory underlying his 'Action Science', and > as it > is for all purposeful behavior. Again, this calls for you to pay attention to things that you have not been paying attention to. Conscious control seems to require that we pay attention, and the bandwidth of attention is surprisingly narrow (Tor Norretranders, \_The User Illusion\_). Bruce Gregory > Marc "Everything that needs to be said has already been said. But since no one was listening, everything must be said again." Andre Gide ---

**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 20, 2003, 2:39am UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/enemies/3936/58 "2003-12-20T02:39:55Z")

from [Marc Abrams (2003.12.19.2036)] > [From Rick Marken (2003.12.19.1540)] > I think one of the most dramatic examples of seeing the same objective > circumstances in different ways at different times occurs with the ambiguous > figure illusions, like the wife/witch illusion, where the same physical > lines look at one time, like a beautiful woman and, at another, like an old > hag. Once you learn to see the picture in both ways it's easy to switch from > one perception to the other voluntarily. This switching is a form of > control, is it not? \_Great question\_. I don't know. If you mean is it a 'controlled' process I would say yes. If you were to ask me whether it was \_entirely\_ voluntary I might not think so. Magicians have known for many more years than neuroscientists, that our eyes will follow movement, whether we want to or not. That is why slight-of-hand works. We can't help ourselves from being distracted, even if we try \_not\_ to be. This seems to be a tdifferent kind of question though, in that, illusions usually don't move. I happen to have a book right along side me; \_101 Amazing Optical Illusions\_ by Terry Jennings For instance, I learned on the first page that when one eye is covered you can only see in 2 dimensions and not 3. We also have a dominant eye. If your right-handed it is usually your right eye. Wow!, I just tried the first illusion. Take a piece of paper and roll it up as a tube. With your \_left\_ eye look through the tube and while you do this move your right hand, palm open, toward your right eye next to the rolled up tube. It looks like you are looking through a hole in your right hand, and this does \_not\_ work reversing eyes. > I can control whether I am seeing the wife or the witch at any particular time. It's not easy but it can be done. Yes, once you learn how and practice. The book on illusions talks about that a great deal. We are capable of 'fooling' our eyes. But are we? First it's not our eyes, its our \_brain\_ that is being fooled. Fooled by a set of patterns that can be ambiguous. > Perhaps inputs from memory and imagination will, indeed, be needed to explain this > phenomenon. Maybe the use of illusions in a tracking type task is the way to > get at this. Maybe, but do we need to work with trickery. Argyris has \_TONS\_ of data. Is it useful? can it be analyzed? I think so. It come in a few different forms > \> Of course the MOL is a terrific way to alter your perceptions, it's called > \> reflection. > > I think the change in perception that occurs during MOL is different from > the change that occurs in situations like the wife/witch. In MOL, you are > seeing the same situation from a different point of view. In the ambiguous > figure example, you are seeing the same situation from the same point of > view, just different examples of perceptions from that point of view. How so? The difference, as I now understand it, has to do with the amount of rapid eye movements we make in adjustment to viewing the picture. You must 'train' yourself to view it more than one way and 'see' the illusion. So in effect you are 'seeing' \_different\_ situations. That is, your eyes are not 'seeing' the same patterns, they are seeing something different. I don't think there is a difference. In both cases, we see something different than we did before. > For example, in an MOL change in perception you would change from seeing the > wife/witch picture as an ambiguous configuration to seeing it as an > illustration of a principle (of ambiguous perception). It only becomes 'ambiguous' when you learn how to see the other picture. Before that it is quite clear what you can see. > In a non-MOL change > in perception you go from seeing one perception (the wife configuration) to > seeing a different one of the same type (the witch configuration). Yes, and the same thing happens in MOL. You go from seeing an obstacle in your path that you can't seem to get around to seeing several choices around that obstacle, a different percpetion. > I don't think what happened in the "conflict thread" with Bruce was an > example of either MOL or seeing the same objective situation differently. There is \_NEVER\_ such a thing as an 'objective' view. \_NEVER\_. C'mon Rick, It's all about perceptions. \_HOW\_ can someone have an 'objective' perception? > That's because I think the objective situation was somewhat different when I > read Bruce's posts as part of the "conflict" thread and when I read them > afterwards. Yes, your imagination the second time over wrote your imagination the first time. 🙂 > The difference, I think, was the affective component of those > perceptions, which were part of my perceptions of the posts when I was in > the midst of the conflict but not part of those perceptions when I read the > posts afterward. This, of course, is consistent with your idea that > perceptions often include an emotional component. Great observation. So yes, emotion can and does affect what we perceive. Maybe it was \_only\_ the affective aspect that was different, maybe not. Emotions, as I hope to show shortly, \_can\_ affect what your senses pick up. Have you ever been in pain, say, had a bad tooth ache, and you tried to concentrate on looking at and perceiving the subtlety's of a great work of art or for you, listening to an intricate piece of music. Do you think you perceive the same performance with or without that added pain? Of course we are \_ALWAYS\_ in some state of feeling. As Bill like to point out. Zero, does not mean the absence of. > I think my own emotions became part of my perception of Bruce's posts when we were in the conflict. Emotions are \_always\_ a part of every perception. Not always noticable, but always present. > When I re-read Bruce's posts that emotional component was no longer present. \_AN\_ emotional component was present, just not the one that helped set you off. > So I perceived Bruce's posts differently during and after the conflict > because the objective basis of those perceptions was different during and > after the conflict. It had \_nothing\_ to do with 'objectivety'. It had all to do with your different perceptions, caused by a number of different factors. > The emotional component that existed during the > conflict probably led me to perceive Bruce's posts as "baiting". Only part of it. The emotional component would not have reached such a state unless it had 'cause', either real or imagined. I would think in this case, your imagination played a big role in you perceptions. Your emotions were the major 'cause' (i.e. the error you experienced) of your actions > The absence > of that component after the conflict let me see those same posts as honest > challenges or questions about what PCT can explain. The conflict would > probably not have escalated as it did if I had simply waited until the > emotional component of my perceptions of Bruce's post had disappeared. Emotional components do not disappear. They \_change\_, but are always present. At least that's the way I currently see it. Nice post Rick. I'm real glad you find this stuff might be worthwhile exploring. Marc ---

**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 20, 2003, 2:52am UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/enemies/3936/59 "2003-12-20T02:52:40Z")

from [Marc Abrams (2003.12.19.2145)] > [From Bruce Gregory (2003.12.19.2113)] > He had to change what he was paying attention to. Is that what you mean? \_EXACTLY\_. Thank you. > Again, this calls for you to pay attention to things that you have not > been paying attention to. Conscious control seems to require that we > pay attention, and the bandwidth of attention is surprisingly narrow > (Tor Norretranders, \_The User Illusion\_). Yes, Yes, and Yes. Another problem is often we don't know what we \_should\_ pay attention to. Our control systems unfortunately do not all work in unison for the better good of the entire individual. What is good for one control system (eating a good pastrami sandwich) is real bad for another (cholesterol, and diet) 🙂 and 'conflicts' like this are not easily resolved. 🙂 (I speak from personal experience here :-)) Marc ---

**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 20, 2003, 4:13am UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/enemies/3936/60 "2003-12-20T04:13:22Z")

[Martin Taylor 2003.12.19.1303] > [From Bruce Gregory (2003.12.19.1112)] > > > [Martin Taylor 2003.12.19.0009 EST] > > > > If you are talking about a belief, maybe you observe something that > > is an input into the function that defines the nature of the belief. > > To the extent that beliefs are perceptions, they are not perceptions of > the physical world. No? I believe my tea is hot. Is that not a perception of the physical world. I believe F=ma. Is that not a perception of the phsyical world? I believe politicians sometimes tell the truth. Is that not a perception of the real world? > Nor, apparently can they be manipulated in the > fashion that objects can be manipulated. Beliefs are thoughts. So, I would say, are other perceptions. Some very concrete perceptions are not very controllable: I perceive that mountain over there, but I am unable to act so as to be able to perceive it over \_there\_ instead. Some beliefs are quite controllable. I want to believe X is my friend (which I don't now believe). I act toward X so that I perceive his feelings toward me to become more friendly. I am controlling my belief in just the way I control any perception. But, as with my perception of the mountain, I would find it difficult to act so that I ceased to believe F=ma. > they are > formulations in language. I think that may be true for some people. For others they may be more pictorial, and for yet others, they may be hybrid. But what is language except another variety ofcontrollable perception? > (You can say that I believe that the wall is > solid. If you use the term in that way, animals as well as humans have > beliefs. Yep. > I am using the term to refer to what we normally call beliefs, > e.g., the universe is governed by universal laws.) Those, too. > No matter what you > think of Saddam Hussein, you see pretty much the same guy as I do. Perhaps, but I think there are many Iraqis who don't. It sounds as though you are limiting perception (of Saddam) to physical appearance. I do grant that there may be occasions when perceptions of different kinds are given different labels, and it may well be useful to keep in mind that a "belief' is different in kind from a perception that we call "event". But I don't think it is useful to say that a belief is not a perception at all. Martin [Previous page](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/enemies/3936.md?page=2) [Next page](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/enemies/3936.md?page=4)