[From Dag Forssell 2009 0727 07:10 PST]
At 06:52 PM 7/26/2009, Shannon Williams wrote:
... when I come home to my five month old daughter.
Shannon,
Have you checked out the very PCT site www.thewonderweeks.com?
Be sure to download and print the flyer/brochure under Extras.
You can learn a lot about how reference signals emerge from the work of Hetty van de Rijt and Frans Plooij.
Best, Dag
Very cool! I ordered my my copy of "The Wonder Weeks". I am
devouring all books like this now. Thank you.
However, the book seems to provide a description of baby development
such that a theory of the mechanism by which references develop must
explain these descriptions. But the book does not explain the trigger
for reference development. It does not, in effect, explain what
simple guiding principle caused the brain evolve at all. PCT explains
the manifestation of this guiding principle. PCT does not explain the
guiding principle. PCT does not mention that there exists this one
principle in nature, such that if this principle were not true, then
the brain would never have evolved past a rudimentary
stimulus/response neuron.
Is anyone interested in disucssing this? Can you tell that I am?
On Mon, Jul 27, 2009 at 9:02 AM, Dag Forssell<csgarchive@pctresources.com> wrote:
[From Dag Forssell 2009 0727 07:10 PST]
At 06:52 PM 7/26/2009, Shannon Williams wrote:
... when I come home to my five month old daughter.
Shannon,
Have you checked out the very PCT site www.thewonderweeks.com?
Be sure to download and print the flyer/brochure under Extras.
You can learn a lot about how reference signals emerge from the work of
Hetty van de Rijt and Frans Plooij.Best, Dag
[From Bill Powers (2009.07.28.0740 MDT)]
However, the book seems to provide a description of baby development
such that a theory of the mechanism by which references develop must
explain these descriptions. But the book does not explain the trigger
for reference development.
I don't know how you're thinking of "reference development," but in HPCT, reference signals are not simply "triggered." Nor are they set once and for all to specific values. They are adjusted by higher-level control systems as the means of achieving higher-level reference conditions or conteracting disturbances of higher-level perceptions. Only at the highest level are we likely to see constant reference signals, for the simple reason that there are no higher control systems to adjust them.
It does not, in effect, explain what simple guiding principle caused the brain evolve at all. PCT explains the manifestation of this guiding principle. PCT does not explain the guiding principle. PCT does not mention that there exists this one principle in nature, such that if this principle were not true, then the brain would never have evolved past a rudimentary
stimulus/response neuron.
The only present "guiding principle" of that kind in PCT at present is the idea of a reorganizing system. The reorganizing system operates in the background to control the states of internal variables involved with physical survival. It does so by altering the organization of the behavioral hierarchy in the brain. The reference signals for these variables have to be set by evolutionary processes, since they have to be present from the start of individual life.
What's your idea?
Best,
Bill P.
At 06:47 PM 7/27/2009 -0500, Shannon Williams wrote:
[From Dick Robertson,2009.07.28.1104CDT]
[From Bill Powers (2009.07.28.0740 MDT)]
However, the book seems to provide a description of baby development
such that a theory of the mechanism by which references develop must
explain these descriptions. But the book does not explain
the trigger for reference development.. PCT
does not mention that there exists this one principle in
nature,
such that if this principle were not true, then the brain would
never have evolved past a rudimentary
stimulus/response neuron.The only present “guiding principle” of that kind in PCT at
present is the idea of a reorganizing system. \
. The reference signals for these variables have to be set by evolutionary
processes, since they have to be present from the start of individual life.
DR: Yeah, as I read Shannon’s question I thought it referred to “Where do the references for
evolutionary processes come from in the first place?”
That sounds to me like it’s getting over into Kenny Kitzke territory.
Best,
Dick R
At 06:47 PM 7/27/2009 -0500, Shannon Williams wrote:
[From Kenny Kitzke (2009.07.28)]
Dick, getting into Kenny’s territory is risky, especially on the tennis court!
But, you were probably referring to from where the highest level reference perceptions for humans come if they are not set by a higher level perceptual control system? Most of the PCT stalwarts know that I have a different speculation than Bill Powers about this.
Like Bill, I think they originate from some system other than a perceptual control system which Bill describes as a “reorganization system.” My theory is that humans possess a unique system that does not exist in lower species. So, the conjecture that this system is activated randomly by trial and error with survival as a goal might be plausible for animals.
But, animals don’t seem to have a need for beliefs or systems of purpose at high levels of perception. So, finding food and escaping from an enemy may be the kind of survival behavior that dominates their interactions with their environment.
However, humans can and must deal with activities and purposes and conflicts at perceptual levels that do not seem to be a part of animals. So, we deal with not just survival, but purposes and accomplishments while we are alive. We wonder about death and how the moon or the universe or even ourselves came into being. We struggle to understand how easily observed phenomena like electricity, gravity or time work?
These inquisitive and creative longings and abilities seem to be largely unique in mankind. They seem to be inherent human functions within ourselves, rather than something acquired during life as when a baby develops knowledge of the world outside themselves to recognize what a cow is or that it is available for meat or milk useful to survival of our human bodies.
This system is not that which controls our physical bodies. It is not the system that allows us to think and make rational and conscious decisions like what to write in this post. The reorganization system in humans that I comprehend is called the human spirit in the Bible. It relates to our purpose in living, that which satisfies our deepest aspirations of what gives our life meaning. It is not a spirit in the sense of a ghost but a part of all humans that works completely and within ourselves and guides our physical behavior but is unseen and undetectable by physical measures or by observers.
Why is playing tennis so pleasurable to me or you? What higher level goals/purposes does it satisfy? Can you even consciously describe them with clarity? Why did you choose to marry your wife? Something in your human spirit makes these behaviors pleasing to you rather than playing golf or looking for a different wife or a number of wives. I accept this human spirit system but obviously don’t have physical data or even computer models to confirm it. If I did, it would not be the mysterious part of our human nature that I can only term our spirit which gives unique meaning to our life: to our soul. But, I don’t think Bill Powers or you have a much more cogent explanation of the reorganizing system proposed to exit within PCT or HPCT to answer the unanswerable.
If someone has more convincing speculations or experiments on the nature of a “reorganizing” system or where it came from or how it works, I am willing to learn. Learning is part of our human spirit. The purpose/reference perception is never satisfied by our behavior. It has an infinite aspect exceeding our finite abilities to perceive everything possible.
Now, back to the real world of cutting the grass. How unique is that human goal in the real world of other living things?
BTW, I missed not playing our annual tennis match at the CSG Conference. Best wishes to you.
Kenny
.
In a message dated 7/28/2009 12:11:33 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, R-Robertson@NEIU.EDU writes:
[From Dick Robertson,2009.07.28.1104CDT]
[From Bill Powers (2009.07.28.0740 MDT)]
At 06:47 PM 7/27/2009 -0500, Shannon Williams wrote:
However, the book seems to provide a description of baby development
such that a theory of the mechanism by which references develop must
explain these descriptions. But the book does not explain
the trigger for reference development.. PCT
does not mention that there exists this one principle in
nature,
such that if this principle were not true, then the brain would
never have evolved past a rudimentary
stimulus/response neuron.The only present “guiding principle” of that kind in PCT at
present is the idea of a reorganizing system. \. The reference signals for these variables have to be set by evolutionary
processes, since they have to be present from the start of individual life.DR: Yeah, as I read Shannon’s question I thought it referred to “Where do the references for
evolutionary processes come from in the first place?”That sounds to me like it’s getting over into Kenny Kitzke territory.
Best,
Dick R
A bad credit score is 600 & below. Checking won’t affect your score. See now!
If someone has more convincing
speculations or experiments on the nature of a “reorganizing”
system or where it came from or how it works, I am willing to
learn. Learning is part of our human spirit. The
purpose/reference perception is never satisfied by our behavior. It
has an infinite aspect exceeding our finite abilities to perceive
everything possible.
[From ill Powers (2009.07.28.1325 MDT)]
Kenny Kitzke (2009.07.28)
What you describe as uniquely human aspirations sounds
exactly like what I think of as the system-concept level. I would guess
that some other species have developed a similar level, though I suspect
it’s simpler and possibly different in other ways, and I don’t think many
species have got nearly that far yet. So maybe we have come still another
step or two closer to agreement.
Well said, whether we agree on everything or not.
Best,
Bill P.
No, I am refering to the pressure that caused the evolution of the
brain. Before there were 'reorganizing system', what was there? What
general concept does the brain control? It does not (primarily)
control temperature, digestion, insuline, blood flow, etc. What does
the brain control? Perceptions - yes. but to what end? Under what
constraint/principle? The constraint is important because by knowing
that then we know how neurons have evolved into a reorganizing system
that develops references and changes them
Before I can offer you what I am thinking, I need to know how to
phrase it. Can I ask you some questions first? I will phrase my
answer based on your answers.
1. 'If you have survived so far then you must be doing something
right'. Do you agree that this statement is applicable to a species,
as well as to an individual organism? If you do not agree then can
you give me a statement where given the assumption of survival, we can
conlcude something about the behavior.
2. "If you have survived your current environment then you can
continue to survive that same environment." Do you generally agree
with this statement? If not, can you alter it like above?
Thats all for now! I am off to see my daughter. Please, please play
this game with me.
Take Care,
Shannon
On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 8:53 AM, Bill Powers<powers_w@frontier.net> wrote:
The only present "guiding principle" of that kind in PCT at present is the
idea of a reorganizing system.
[From Kenny Kitzke (2009.07.28.2200EDT)]
I hope you are not ill, but just skipped a “B” in your name.
I perceived we were pretty close in recognizing a “reorganizing” system in humans for many years. If not, I would probably not have continue to hang around the control systems group.
There remains a few points of disagreement in some aspects.
I wish I could spend more time, but I have company coming and will be reorganizing my purpose for delving further into PCT. My wife increasingly thinks it is a waste of time. This is disturbing as I have found MOL valuable in restoring control of life when nothing else seems to have worked. I hope one day she will explore MOL in her life an gain an “aha” that is a true reorganization in her perceptual systems before the hour glass goes empty.
Shalom,
Kenny
In a message dated 7/28/2009 3:33:01 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, powers_w@FRONTIER.NET writes:
If someone has more convincing speculations or experiments on the nature of a "reorganizing" system or where it came from or how it works, I am willing to learn. Learning is part of our human spirit. The purpose/reference perception is never satisfied by our behavior. It has an infinite aspect exceeding our finite abilities to perceive everything possible.[From ill Powers (2009.07.28.1325 MDT)]
Kenny Kitzke (2009.07.28) —
What you describe as uniquely human aspirations sounds exactly like what I think of as the system-concept level. I would guess that some other species have developed a similar level, though I suspect it’s simpler and possibly different in other ways, and I don’t think many species have got nearly that far yet. So maybe we have come still another step or two closer to agreement.
Well said, whether we agree on everything or not.
Best,
Bill P.
KK: There remains a few points
of disagreement in some aspects.
- one is how this “reorganizing system (RS)” in humans came
into existence (basically some form of natural evolution over very long
periods of time or by some kind of supernatural creation event or process
that began just thousands of years ago). What is so interesting is
that PCT explains human behavior so well regardless of its
origin.
[From Bill Powers (2009.07.30.0856 MDT)]
Kenny Kitzke (2009.07.28.2200EDT)
origins2.doc (168 KB)
–
BP: The most honest answer is “I don’t know.” The best we can
do is conjecture on the basis of what we know now to see if there are any
principles that might show how the reorganizing system or the control
systems could naturally arise from whatever materials were available
“in the beginning.” Being unable to travel in time, there’s no
way we can verify any conjecture we might make – yours or mine. The best
we can do is look at whatever evidence is available now and try to make
sense of it.
I have offered some conjectures in my article on “The origins of
purpose” that I attached — oops, did I ever attach it? I can’t
find a post from me with an attachment for quite some time, and it’s the
wrong one. OK, I attach it again.
Anyhow, in this article I offer some guesses about how negative feedback
systems might first arise from a “soup” of organic chemicals.
We now know that many kinds organic chemicals arise in space as stars
blow up and elements combine:
[
http://www.redorbit.com/news/space/270822/nasa_organic_chemicals_common_in_space/
](http://www.redorbit.com/news/space/270822/nasa_organic_chemicals_common_in_space/)Given a sea full of organic chemicals that are constantly being
formed, broken down, and formed again, we have a set of
“species” that is the average population of complex organic
chemicals. In the article I worked out a way in which negative feedback
loops might develop from the simple fact that some species of chemicals
would generate reaction products that improve the chances that the same
species would be regenerated, in effect “replicating” itself.
There would be some small tendency to resist disturbances that otherwise
would cause inaccurate replication, and that is all that is needed. Using
“accuracy of replication” as the criterion rather than simple
“survival of the fittest,” we can see that evolution becomes
almost inevitable. The article is just an intellectual exercise, of
course, but it suggests possible experiments that a really good organic
chemist might be able to do. If we could demonstrate the spontaneous
appearance of negative feedback loops in a collection of chemicals like
those we know to exist in space, we would have a pretty good idea of how
it all might have started – though of course, no proof.
KK: I have never bought into the
idea that the intrinsic variable(s) associated with the action of this RS
are related to survival. It may have application to most living
things and wild animals, but humans often select life goals that put
their survival at a lower level (their spirit seeks higher aspirations
than seeing a new day arrive.
I agree that human beings often pursue apparently inherited goals that
are not simply related to staying fed, warm, sheltered, and so on. I have
repeated many times that “intrinsic reference levels” can
include things like beauty and order – that is, I haven’t ruled such
things out, and have said so. However, we also pursue built-in goals that
are related to survival-type variables, and when necessary will
learn like mad to keep them close to their inherited reference levels.
This isn’t an either-or proposition; there is a spectrum of possible
intrinsic variables and reference levels and no good reason to rule any
of them out – yet.
KK: The idea that the process of
reorganization is triggered by severe internal conflict in humans despite
the repeated actions of their perceptual control systems and reorganizes
the hierarchy in a random process something like trial and error (act and
sense if the error goes down) to establish new reference levels or
variables. I perceive that humans, using their spirit of purpose,
establish new goals /references at the system level because it occurs to
them to be a superior purpose or just to try to discover a new
organization of the hierarchy that produces less
error.
BP: When you say you “perceive” those things, where do you
perceive them? I’d like to look and perceive them, too. Or do you really
mean “imagine?”
When you say we establish “new” goals, what do you mean by
“new?” Do you mean we have some established way of generating
new goals and when we need a new goal we just apply this method and crank
one out? Or do you mean that the goal is new in the sense that it
couldn’t have been generated by any systematic method we know of? If it’s
the latter, how is that different from generating a new goal at random? A
“random” variable is one whose state is not derived from any
existing information by a regular or systematic principle that we know
about. Randomness continually produces newness.
Of course once we do generate some new organization at random, we still
have to find out if we want to keep it, or generate another one that
might work better, or drop it immediately because it’s so bad.
Reorganization isn’t only a process of producing new organizations at
random. There is also the selection process: a new organization is
retained only if it corrects the intrinsic error that started the
reorganization. New ideas are a dime a dozen. Good new ideas,
however, don’t come along that often, and you need to remain alert to
them so you can slow down at least long enough to see if the new idea
pans out. The process of judging the result of trying a new organization
is the critical element of reorganization in PCT. The random changes only
produce possibilities to consider. Just because an idea pops into your
head is no reason to believe that it’s a good or true idea.
Anyway, I am a bit puzzled by why
you think lower life forms have reference variables for
beliefs/principles much less system level references or a spirit of
discovery/learning in any way comparable to that found in
humans?
I’m puzzled by why you think human beings are so different from the rest
of the living world. Certainly there are big differences, but what’s so
great about thinking that we are masters of this little mole-hill or
unique in ways unconnected to every other living thing? Do you suppose
that our self-evaluation might be just a wee bit biased?
I doubt that a bacterium has system concepts, or even a mouse, but I’d be
surprised if gorillas and chimpanzees didn’t. You do add “in any way
comparable to that found in humans,” but that can mean anything: 2%
as complex, or 80%. I admit I like to think I have a bit more upstairs
than a chimpanzee does, but that’s no big ego thing to me. I’m not
competing with chimpanzees for prestige. And we really know very little
about whales and dolphins and elephants with their nice big brains.
The real question in this area of thought is not what the right
ideas are: it’s how we should go about finding the right ideas. Should we
examine evidence, test hypotheses, do experiments and try to replicate
experiments that others do, make our methods of reasoning public? Or
should we just wait for ideas to pop into our heads, trust our feelings
that one idea is better than another, let a feeling of rightness and
conviction decide the issues? That’s the real argument between religion
and science. You can propose any truth you want and a scientist will
consider it. But a scientist won’t accept any truth just because someone
writes or says that it is true. There has to be something more than just
saying or believing.
Best,
Bill P.
[From Dick Robertson,2009.07.30.1231CDT]
[From Kenny Kitzke (2009.07.28)]
Dick, getting into Kenny’s territory is risky, especially on the tennis court!
Yeah, well, I keep trying, don’t I? I did sure miss our gettogether this year. I would have come for that alone, though I also miss all the great stuff in the demonstrations that we could discuss right then and there. Hope I can make the next one wherever it is. I’ll bring my raquette if I can still stumble around the court.
I read your later post before coming back to this one, and I liked your laying out the mystery issues beyond the development of PCsystems prior to (if such a priority there was) reorganization systems.
Best,
Dick R