Hi Rick,
it just look like. I didn’t »dropped out« from discussion but I discussed it directly with Martin. I thought that whole post was much under his level. Afterall he didn’t try to answer my points but form some his »construct« which I thought was used for his purposes to »attack me« and »attempt to controll« (like HPCT system could be expected to do, to suit his purposes). But Martin answered that was not his intention and that we perceived his text differently. He thought more about »academic discussion« about my »BCT«. At first it makes no sense to me, but after thinking about it, maybe it’s not so bad idea.
So I’ll start discussion where I stopped with Bill. If anybody wants to join, his welcome. The discussion is continuing »story« of »where I’m coming from« as Martin noticed.
When I read Bill books I run into a problem when I saw figure on p. 191 (B:CP,2005). The problem was in the most bsaic control system which »drives« behavioral hierarchy through »reorganization«. The object of control by this basic control system is to keep certain physiological (biochemical) variables near particular values : body temperature near 98+ degress Fahrenheit, certain level of blood glucose, blood level of O2, CO2, blood electrolytes, and so on.
Or in other words : the main point of this system is to maintain »intrinsic error« inside »physiological limits«. Intrinsic »error« is defined in PCT as »discrepancy between any intrinsic quantity and it’s intrinsic reference level. The driving force for the reorganization.« (B:CP, 2005 : 297).
Set of »intrinsic errors«, which is controlled by basic control system, is seen as control force for »reorganizing principle«. But there is a problem, which Bruce Abbott in his Synopsis described (by my oppinion right) that At the heart of perceptual control theory is the idea that human beings are essentially intricate control mechanisms that function to keep certain intrinsic (or essential, see Ashby, 1952) variables within survivable limits. Intrinsic variables (variables intrinsic to the organism) include basic physiological variables such as blood glucose levels or body temperature, as well certain high-level variables whose maintenance in certain states are crucial to the individual’s well-being; the references of these intrinsic variables are genetically specified. With respect to physiological quantities, the body is known to house numerous control mechanisms that help to maintain them within the narrow limits required for efficient operation and survival. These mechanisms are capable of sensing the current levels of these controlled quantities and automatically initiating physiological changes as necessary to correct deviations of these levels from reference values, a process that the early 20th century physiologist Walter Cannon (1932) termed homeostasis.
Although at any given moment a tremendous number of physiological quantities is being automatically regulated through nonbehavioral (purely physiological) means, the regulatory mechanisms by themselves are not capable of countering all the sources of potential disturbance to the intrinsic variables. To take one example, because humans are not rooted in the soil like plants, we must seek out and consume food and water. Automatic physiological mechanisms do act against disturbances to internal levels of water and nutrition, but these only can take the form of actions to reduce the rate of depletion of these quantities. To replenish them, we must behave. That is, we must move our muscles in a way that ultimately leads to locating, obtaining, and consuming food and water. Behavior, then, is a means by which humans (and other animals) defend their intrinsic variables against disturbance.
So something has to happen before »reorganizing principle« is used to reduce the »intrinsic error« with behavior or as Bruce pointed out »tremendous number of physiological quantities is being automatically regulated though nonbehavioral (purely physiological) means. And he also pointed out that the regulatory mechanisms by themselves are not capable of countering all the sources of potential disturbance to the intrinsic variables, so LCS have to behave. How this happens ?
Bill also talked about »inherited systems« which are supposed to control most of the variables in the physiological-biochemical system to work right. But neither he or Bruce gave the answer how this is achieved. How »intrinsic regulation« knows when to switch on behavior ? Ashby (1960) did gave a solution of basic kind but he also mostly neglected nonbehavioral means for controlling the »displacement in essential variables«. His focus was on behaviorla means, what probably Bill took over.
So to solve this riddle I proposed in diagram on p. 191 (B:CP, 2005) the arrow from genetic control system to »essential variables« as that was the only possible way to connect »genetic source« with genetically set references for »essential« or »intrinsic« variables. I also tried to »built« control system which will be able to »switch« between nonbehavioral and behavioral means and set priorites for control of »intrinsic errors«.
If I go a little back into the debate with Bill he was at first strictly on the side of »reorganization«, but later he changed his mind and support idea about the »arrow« from »genetic conrol system« to intrinsic variables. He said that he was working on it before and that it’s a long time his idea. So let it be. But the problem stayed. And Bill changed his mind again. He stayed at »reorganization«. We never discussed again how nonbehavioral means turn as Bruce said into behavioral means when »intrinsic regulatory mechanisms« are not capable of counteracting »all the sources of potential disturbance to the intrinsic variables«.
So my vision is, that I have to determine how references are set for the »essential variables«, and how control works in this different version of reducing the »intrinsic errors« in organism with »arrow« from genetic control system to »intrinsic state«. This is the core problem from »where I’m coming from«. This is the starting point for my »BCT« as Martin put it.
Best,
Boris
···
On Sat, Nov 15, 2014 at 12:22 AM, Boris Hartman boris.hartman@masicom.net wrote:
From: csgnet-request@lists.illinois.edu [mailto:csgnet-request@lists.illinois.edu] On Behalf Of Richard Marken (rsmarken@gmail.com via csgnet Mailing List)
Sent: Thursday, November 06, 2014 1:59 AM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: Review of “Reconstructing Your World View� by Bart Madden
[From Rick Marken (2014.11.05.1700)]
On Sat, Nov 1, 2014 at 8:37 AM, Martin Taylor csgnet@lists.illinois.edu wrote:
Boris,
MT: I won’t try to answer your points, but I appreciate your clarifications of where you are coming from.
RM: It looks like Boris has dropped out of this conversation for the time being, perhaps waiting for the arrival of LCS IV. But this gives me a chance to get back to the topic that is the title of this thread , my review of “Reconstructing Your World Viewâ€?. I gave it a pretty negative review but some PCTers seemed to like it a lot. I would really like to hear from those PCTers who liked the book what is was that they liked about it. And also I’d like to hear from any other PCTers (beside Fred Nichols, who liked my review – thanks Fred!) who read the book what they thought of it and/or what they thought of my review.
Best regards
Rick
–
Richard S. Marken, Ph.D.
Author of Doing Research on Purpose.
Now available from Amazon or Barnes & Noble
–
Richard S. Marken, Ph.D.
Author of Doing Research on Purpose.
Now available from Amazon or Barnes & Noble