[From Rick Marken (931124.1100)]
Hans Blom (931124)--
You take a few perceptions
(my story of driving on a German Autobahn), plug in some old experiences
(use an "internal model" that says that you usually drive inside your own
country), combine the two, and arrive at the conclusion that I am German.
I am not.
In this example, feedforward results in error.
You are just describing, in feedforward terms, the process by which
you imagine that I concluded that you were German . I can describe
the same process in feedback terms just as well -- better, even:
I was controlling an imagined perception of your nationality at a
reference level ("German") that, when combined with other perceptions
(such as your Autobahn story) and imaginations (such as my memory of
where you were posting from), yeilded a higher order controlled,
imagined perception of a system called "Hans". It was feedback
control all the way -- involving control of both actual and imagined
perceptions.
The "error" that resulted was an irrelevant side effect of this
FEEDBACK control process. I can't perceive and hence control my
perception of the relationship between the name of a nationality
and the name that you would give your nationality so an observer,
like you, who can perceive the state of this relationship variable
can judge such SIDE EFFECTS of my controlling as an "error". The fact
that I can't perceive this error doesn't mean that my conclusion
that you are German is a result of a feedforward process.
I like my story better than yours (of course) but neither
one is particularly convincing without some EVIDENCE relating
to each -- real, experimental evidence involving tests for
controlled variables.
CHUCK TUCKER (931123) described a "feedforward" demo and said:
Try this you will get the same results.
Chris Malcolm (931123) replied:
Not necessarily. Some people are naturally good at this sort of thing.
And some people can train themselves to be very good indeed.
Which suggests that these people are learning to control perceptions.
It's hard to see how one would get better at producing results
by feedforward processes (after all, feedfoward implies that results
are produced by precalculated outputs and that's that; what the
actual results are is unknown and unknowable to the feedforward
system). I CAN imagine improvement in performance if the feedforward
process were imbedded in a feedback process; for example, the feed-
forward is simply the output function in a feedback loop. Those who
become skillful at moving to a target blindfolded (if all visual imput
is really COMPLETELY eliminated) must have learned to control other
perceptual variables -- auditory, proprioceptive, vestibular, etc --
and it should be easy to test to determine which of these variables
is being controlled (ie. obtain EVIDENCE). If there is no evidence
of controlled variables, then Hans will be very happy because we
will have found evidence of feedforward control.
Bruce Nevin (Wed 931124 09:50:51 EST)--
Rick, if Annie imagines that it is very very important to her to please
her mother, then that is so for Annie. If Annie imagines that in order
to please her mother (or in order for her mother not to be angry with
her) she must not take the initiative in serving the children
gingerbread, because that would usurp her mother's prerogatives and she
would be angry with her, then that is so for Annie. If Annie imagines
that in order to please her mother (or in order for her mother not to be
angry with her) she must take the initiative and serve the children
gingerbread, as a responsible young adult helping out in the shop, then
that is so for Annie.
Nice try, but not quite what you said in the previous post. The point
of that post seemed to be that some people (like Mrs. Corrie) can act
in a way that "double binds" other people (like Annie). NOW you imply
that people don't double bind other people; they double bind them-
selves (which is correct). But it is still not clear from your comments
above that the conflict comes from controlling; you make it seems like
the conflict comes from imagining. Conflict does NOT result from
imagining; in fact, as you will see below, one (unfortunate) solution
to conflict is persistent imagining.
Annie's conflict (double bind), as you describe it above, results
from the fact that Annie has adopted two inconsistent goals in order
to achieve the higher level goal of pleasing her mother. If
Annie adopts the goals of 1) taking the initiative and 2) not usurping
mom's power then she will get into situations where she is in conflict.
She can't achieve both goals, for example, by giving the kids
gingerbread. Mrs. Corrie may be an asshole (she is), but she is not
the cause of Annie's problems; Annie (at least the higher level
systems in Annie that are selecting the conflicting goals) is.
You are trying to cast human conflict as a problem of living
under illusions (delusions). You says:
What would it take to disabuse them of this shared delusion?
But the problems you describe have nothing to do with illusion or
delusion. The problems you dsescribe result fronm the fact that
people are control systems (usually a good thing), trying to
make their experience match their own references for that
experience. Annie's problem results from the fact that she has
apparently developed a control organization that produces
incompatible references for the same experience ("initiating
action"). The way to solve this problem is 1) reorganizing
2) learning PCT and how to "go up a level or 3) living in illusion
(ie. abandon attempts to reorganize and live in a word of
imagination all the time -- it's called psychosis).
What teacup?
The one filled with all the preconceptions, grasshopper.
Hal Pepinsky (931124x) --
I don't think Annie knows whether the problem is hers or
Mrs. Corrie's until she checks it out.
Again, this is completely irrelevant. Annie's problem is
hers becuase she's the one with the conflicting goals -- whether
she knows this or not (most people don't know that higher
levels of themselves are the source of their own conflicts).
In the conflict situation, disturbances to the controlled
variables (like those created by Mrs. Corrie) are nearly
completely effective. Since other systems in Annie can see that
Mrs. Corrie is producing those effects, it is easy for Annie
to (mistakingly) conclude (as we all do) that Mrs. Corrie is
the cause of her (Annie's) problems (lack of control). In fact,
Annie's lack of control is a result of the conflict produced
by her own setting of incompatible goals for her own experience.
Attibuting the problem to Mrs. Corrie is a version of the
"behavioral illusion" (read Powers 1978 Psych Review paper)
where one sees a disturbing variable as the cause of variations
(or lack thereof) in owns OWN behavior.
I know you won't be able to understand my comments, Hal (it requires
a pretty good understanding of PCT, which you seem unwilling to
develop) but I say it for the sake of onlookers who might be
interested in the PCT perspective on solving personal problems.
Best
Rick