Have your cake and eat it: understanding reorganization

_Boris_Hartman · January 27, 2019, 3:45am

Hi Eva,

It seems that you are learning very fast. Amazing. I wish you luck with full understanding of PCT.

Regards,

Boris

···

From: Hullu, Eva de eva.dehullu@ou.nl
Sent: Friday, January 25, 2019 2:35 PM
To: boris.hartman@masicom.net
Cc: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: RE: Have your cake and eat it: understanding reorganization

[Eva de Hullu 2019.01.25.14.33]

Dear all,

Thank you all for your additions, comments, suggestions and compliments. I will need some time to process and integrate these ideas. Do some science, in the words of Martin J

So far, from the comments of Warren, I get the hunch that the resolution of conflict through new insight/a new combination of perceptions that I see in MOL – having my cake and eat it – might not actually represent reorganization. In this example, no new control systems are needed, parameters of input and output functions don’t have to shift. Just the content, values of these functions change. In MOL literature (books by Carey and Mansell) however, this process is labeled as reorganization. So if this is not reorganization, what is it?

If I cut off a main branch of a tree and the tree grows a new branch so that it doesn’t fall (balance is restored).
If I learn the Russian alphabet, I develop new references for symbols that were previously unknown to me.
If I was conflicted about eating cake or not, and after having a good look at the conflict, decide that it’s okay to want to eat the cake and keep it too, feel no longer conflicted.
If a client in therapy realizes for the first time that she can see herself as both vulnerable and strong.
If a child learns to ride the bike and is finally able to control keeping the bike stable.

So does reorganization mean that new control systems are added in the hierarchy or new connections are made (as in Ashby’s example of the homeostatic system that made a new wiring after another was cut)? Should the resolution of conflict through awareness that does not involve new control systems (new skills) be called something else? Am I missing something important?

I’ll also ask the MOL mailinglist for input on this subject later, as soon as I get some grip on all the new ideas.

Other aspects that I need to consider:

WM and MT: The time scale of reorganization related to the level.
MT: What do Seth and Friston (2016) have to say about reorganization.
MT: How could new levels be created between the control level as top level and other levels?
MT: Q1 How could the output function also transmit an error function to the input in the same level? [I have no idea, my problem is to understand where the error travels to, and how].
MT: Q2 How would perception of control [not a state of the environment] occur? What would control perceptions [references] look like?
WM: How are intrinsic control systems involved in the model I propose (check dissociation chapter).
HB: The control loop I used was derived from the picture below, in Carey, Mansell & Tai (2015). I wasn’t aware that there’s no concensus about the location of the controlled variable in the environment. I noticed that in building the PCT hierarchy (also depicted in the same book), it’s easy to leave the CV out. The way I understand it actually, we control our perceptions, which are in fact internal representations of the environmont and thus inside the organism. In the hierarchy, the external world is only connected to the lowest level of the perceptual hierarchy, the intensity level, through our senses. The rest is internal, build up from combinations of perceptions above that level.
HB: Is B:CP (2005) the same as the 1973 book or an update? I found a PDF of the 1973 book and can’t find the diagram you speak of. I’ll study the diagrams from and your ideas about that and see if I get it.

Kind regards,
Eva

Carey, T. A., Mansell, W., & Tai, S. J. (2015). Principles-Based Counselling and Psychotherapy - A Method of Levels approach.

Carey, T. A. (2008b). Perceptual control theory and the Method of Levels: Further contributions to a transdiagnostic perspective. International Journal of Cognitive Therapy, 1(3), 237–255.

From: “Boris Hartman” csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Sent: Friday, January 25, 2019 10:03 AM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: RE: Have your cake and eat it: understanding reorganization

Hi Eva and Warren,

Sorry to jump in….

From: “Hullu, Eva de” (eva.dehullu@ou.nl via csgnet Mailing List) csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2019 9:25 PM
To: Warren Mansell wmansell@gmail.com; fwnickols@gmail.com
Cc: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: RE: Have your cake and eat it: understanding reorganization

Hi Warren,

I find that drawing diagrams helps in understanding what I’m trying to get across. In explaining PCT to my colleagues I found it difficult to explain the reorganization system. It was the messy part, while explaining control and the role of conflict were fairly easy. So I hope this discussion helps me find a diagram that could be part of the bigger presentation (in which audio would be a part, sounds like fun).

HB : Certainly. Reorganization is difficult to explain because it does not have scientific ground. It’s just Bills “huntch” upon some other authors that organisms could function in that way :

Bill P :

Reorganization is a blanket term that means changing the way the nervous system is internally connected.

The reorganization system doesn’t stop altering behavioral organization when something useful, reasonable, wise, or socially responsible is learned. It stops when intrinsic error goes to zero.

The concept of error-driven reorganization is a distinct departure from traditional notions of the causes of learning.

The reorganization idea is essentially the reversal image of the idea of reinforcement. Under the reorganization concept behavior continually changes as long there is intrinsic error. When an effect of behavior is to reduce intrinsic error, the next change in organization is delayed, so that behavior that happened to reduce intrinsic error persists a little longer. When the behavioral organization is found that reduces intrinsic error to zero (or whatever the required lower threshold is), the behavioral organization that then exists simply continues to operate unmodified.

So under reinforcement theory, a reinforcement effects of behavior has a positive effect on producing the same behavior, while under reorganization theory, a beneficial effects of behavior reduces the changes that the organization producing that behavior will be altered by further reorganization.

Bill P (B:CP) :

My objective in the remainder of this chapter is to develop a theory of reorganization: only this kind of theory can account for the existence of an adult’s hierarchy of control systems.

The concepts however, can be extended beyond my application of them. Nearly everyone who has worked on self-organizing systems has used principles like mine; I am merely adapting what others have done to a specific model.

HB : An important point is that diagram on p. 191 (B:CP, 2005) and problem about “reorganization” originated in Ashby’s idea of double feed-back. In diagram on p. 191, it can be seen clearly in environmental disturbances affecting “control hierarchy” and “Intrinsic variables” which are in Ashby’s theory called “essential variables”.

Bill P :

I took this idea, incidentally, from the cyberneticist W. Ross Ashby because I thought he was right, though I couldn’t prove it.

Bill P (B:CP) :

My model is direct extension of Ashby’s concept of “ultrastability”, the property intended be demonstrated by this uniselector-equipped homeostat. Ultrastability exists when a system is capable not only of feedback control of behavior-affected perception, but of altering the properties of the control system, including how they perceive and act, as means of satisfying the highest requirements of all survival.

Bill P :

Human reorganization capabilities are demonstrated by the so-called plasticity of the nervous system.

HB : It seems that some points in Bills’ theory about reorganizing of nervous system originated also from Maturana. Plasticity of nervous system in widely used in his book “Tree of knowledge”.

HB : I think that term reorganization quite good describes what is generally happening organism and in nervous system (hierarchy), and how learning take place, but it needs scientific support. It can’t stay “blanket term”. So I think as I wrote many times before that serious scientific study and project is needed to finish diagram on p.191 (B:CP, 2005).

Regards,

Boris

WM: Certainly Bill used overall error across perceptual control systems as one possible intrinsic variable that is minimised through reorganisation. Personally I feel that this is more relevant to an infant than an adult human. Accounts of tolerating huge ‘intrinsic’ hardship - such as Frankl’s traumatisation, appear to be transcended by maintaining control of one’s (existential) (higher level) principles rather than by regaining control per se. However as Frankl was probably an exception, maybe it depends on the individual as to which variable is used to reference the need for reorganisation, and the focus of awareness could dictate this.

EdH: Let me check if I get the right perception. Infants are developing their perceptual system. Their variety in input and output is limited. In that situation, any error would look like overall error (there’s something wrong means all is wrong). In an adult system (not just human,any developed organism) one would expect error to remain specific to the level that is involved (you’re probably able to tell at which level something’s wrong). The diagram expresses an adult control system. If this diagram doesn’t allow specification of the location of error, it’s not right yet.

I look at it this way. Perceptions are nested levels. Say I have error at the level of sensation (L2), and somehow this error will be fed back into the input at L2 (following the orange arrows at page 17). Then, at the top level, this signal will arrive intact, as a L2 perception + error nested in L3 configuration etc. The error is not overall, but contained within the level.

I’m not sure I understand your comment about Frankl. Isn’t it right that reorganization is a very individual process, since the references are very specific to the individual? I think extreme hardship such as Frankl is usually endured by dissociation, but in his case he remained conscious (I think) and reorganized at the highest perceptual level, he chose what was important to him. Through this reorganization he regained control (the top level) (as much control as was possible).

Martin provided some literature on the way error can be transmitted. Thank you, Martin, I’ll look into that!

MT: Your specific question, as to whether the error value can be perceived, is a question to be asked of Nature. The “standard model” of HPCT says “No”. But there is a structural model based on one proposed by Seth and Friston (2016) that I have posted a couple of times to CSGnet in which what is passed up to the “+1” perceptual function is not a set of “zero-level” perceptual values, but the set of “zero-level” reference and error values. Since the “+1” perceptual function can recreate each zero-level perceptual value from the zero-level reference and error, this structure can perform exactly the same as the Powers structure, while allowing extra possibilities such as yours.

WM: Second point, just checking - reorganisation alters the enduring properties of control systems such as the input and output functions but not signals themselves, which are emergent.

EdH: Thank you for clarifying, I paraphrased this incorrectly into random changes to input and output. So it should be random changes to the parameters of input and output functions.

Warren, could it be the case that we are discussing two different systems?
I am looking for a way to visualize what I see happening in a MOL conversation: the emergence of ‘insight’, the resolution of conflict. But now I suddenly doubt if that’s what we call reorganization. There is the reorganization that takes place in a developing system, in which new levels are added to the system and new control systems are integrated (indeed, in my model between the control system and the highest perceptual level). And there’s what happens to the signals in an existing control system when conflict is resolved internally.

Eva

From: Warren Mansell wmansell@gmail.com
Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2019 5:29 PM
To: fwnickols@gmail.com
Cc: Hullu, Eva de eva.dehullu@ou.nl; csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: Have your cake and eat it: understanding reorganization

Hi Eva,

That looks like a lot of hard work already! Very nice slides especially the diagrams.

Do you plan for an audio to accompany it?

Certainly Bill used overall error across perceptual control systems as one possible intrinsic variable that is minimised through reorganisation. Personally I feel that this is more relevant to an infant than an adult human. Accounts of tolerating huge ‘intrinsic’ hardship - such as Frankl’s traumatisation, appear to be transcended by maintaining control of one’s (existential) (higher level) principles rather than by regaining control per se. However as Frankl was probably an exception, maybe it depends on the individual as to which variable is used to reference the need for reorganisation, and the focus of awareness could dictate this.

Second point, just checking - reorganisation alters the enduring properties of control systems such as the input and output functions but not signals themselves, which are emergent.

Hope that proves helpful to the discussion,

Warren

Qqq

On 24 Jan 2019, at 15:31, Fred Nickols (fwnickols@gmail.com via csgnet Mailing List) csgnet@lists.illinois.edu wrote:

Fred Nickols (2019.01.24.1029 ET)

Eva:

Bravo! Nice piece of work. Welcome to the club. I especially like your notion about control being at the top of the hierarchy. Looking forward to more from you.

On Thu, Jan 24, 2019 at 10:21 AM “Hullu, Eva de” csgnet@lists.illinois.edu wrote:

Dear all,

In getting a grip on PCT, I find the most difficult part is visualizing how reorganization works. As I understand so far, this is a concept that’s still very much under construction in the theory. Which also means that there’s room for theory development J

In my thinking process, I’ve prepared a document with diagrams and ideas about reorganization, in which I took Powers’ diagram as represented in Marken & Carey (2015) as a starting point but ultimately ended up with the sense that the reorganization diagram should be simpler, not more complex.

I’d really appreciate your thoughts and comments, either in this mailing list or as comments on the slides.

Have your cake and eat it: https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1N_hxZ-0AWUcEO_QOQ47HCyqtJVq0WpViaDjpaIlKF-s/edit?usp=sharing

Kind regards,
Eva

Marken, R. S., & Carey, T. A. (2015). Understanding the Change Process Involved in Solving Psychological Problems: A Model-based Approach to Understanding How Psychotherapy Works. Clin Psychol Psychother, 22(6), 580–590. https://doi.org/10.1002/cpp.1919

Deze e-mail is uitsluitend bestemd voor de geadresseerde(n). Verstrekking aan en gebruik door anderen is niet toegestaan. Open Universiteit sluit iedere aansprakelijkheid uit die voortvloeit uit elektronische verzending. Aan de inhoud van deze e-mail en/of eventueel toegevoegde bijlagen kunnen geen rechten worden ontleend.

This e-mail is intended exclusively for the addressee(s), and may not be passed on to, or made available for use by any person other than the addressee(s). Open Universiteit rules out any and every liability resulting from any electronic transmission. No rights may be derived from the contents of this message.

–

Fred Nickols
Chief Toolmaker
Distance Consulting LLC
“Assistance at A Distance”
www.nickols.us

Deze e-mail is uitsluitend bestemd voor de geadresseerde(n). Verstrekking aan en gebruik door anderen is niet toegestaan. Open Universiteit sluit iedere aansprakelijkheid uit die voortvloeit uit elektronische verzending. Aan de inhoud van deze e-mail en/of eventueel toegevoegde bijlagen kunnen geen rechten worden ontleend.

This e-mail is intended exclusively for the addressee(s), and may not be passed on to, or made available for use by any person other than the addressee(s). Open Universiteit rules out any and every liability resulting from any electronic transmission. No rights may be derived from the contents of this message.

Deze e-mail is uitsluitend bestemd voor de geadresseerde(n). Verstrekking aan en gebruik door anderen is niet toegestaan. Open Universiteit sluit iedere aansprakelijkheid uit die voortvloeit uit elektronische verzending. Aan de inhoud van deze e-mail en/of eventueel toegevoegde bijlagen kunnen geen rechten worden ontleend.

This e-mail is intended exclusively for the addressee(s), and may not be passed on to, or made available for use by any person other than the addressee(s). Open Universiteit rules out any and every liability resulting from any electronic transmission. No rights may be derived from the contents of this message.

rsmarken · January 27, 2019, 5:07am

[Rick Marken 2019-01-26_21:06:30]

EDH: In my thinking process, Iâ€™ve prepared a document with diagrams and ideas about reorganization, in which I took Powersâ€™ diagram as represented in Marken & Carey (2015) as a starting point but ultimately ended up with the
sense that the reorganization diagram should be simpler, not more complex. Iâ€™d really appreciate your thoughts and comments, either in this mailing list or as comments on the slides.

Â

RM: Hi Eva. First let me say how nice it is to have such an intelligent and enthusiastic young person interested in PCT. I do have some comments on your slides (very nice, by the way) and I hope you will take them as constructive because I believe you could make great contributions to PCT-based science.Â

RM: First of all, I love the idea of dealing with reorganization in terms of a clear-cut conflict and wanting to “have your cake and eat it too” is certainly such a conflict. Your first slide starts off by making the point that when you are in such a conflict you have lost control. I think at this point it would be good to say what you have lost control of. And, of course, it’s the variable in conflict, which is the state of the cake; it can’t be both eaten and not eaten (had).Â

RM: You go on to say that the conflict results in the “lower parts of your hierarchy receiving no signals”. In fact, when there is conflict, the lower level system (the one controlling the variable in conflict – the state of the cake, in this case) receives a reference signal that that would be a combination of the outputs of the two higher level systems that are causing the conflict. Thus, the reference for the state of the cake would be somewhere between eating it and not eating it. So you will, indeed, end up controlling for something between eating it and putting it in a box.Â

RM: Finally, you ask two questions about conflicts. My answer to the first would be that it doesn’t matter what you call the conflict; it’s just two systems controlling the same variable relative to a reference that is a combination of two different references. But if I were pressed to name it, I would say it is both an approach (the side of the conflict that wants to eat the cake) and avoidance (the side that wants to not eat it) conflict. The answer to the second question is definitely “no”; conflicts don’t have any effect on the control systems below the level at which the conflicts occur. That’s why people who have fairly high level conflicts can walk, talk and ice skate perfectly well. It’s the higher level systems that are affected by conflicts at levels below them, specifically the higher level systems that use the conflicted systems to achieve their goal. So the higher level system controlling for picking up the birthday cake would have difficulty controlling for that perception since the means to achieve this goal – bringing home the cake uneaten – is in conflict with the system that wants to eat it.Â Â

RM: The next slide is a diagram of a control model of the conflict. This diagram is kind of “upside down”; the three systems should be on top and the single system on the bottom. A single high level system cannot set two different references for two lower level system; you need at least two higher level systems, one setting the reference for the system that wants to “eat the cake” and another setting the reference for the system that wants to “keep the cake”. These two systems would then be setting the reference for one lower level systems – the “state of the cake” system.Â

RM: You next slide is on reorganization. You describe the MOL solution to the conflict as becoming aware of a perception of both eating and having the cake. I don’t see how this could really be a solution to the conflict even if you could imagine both eating and keeping the cake at the same time (I can’t imagine such a thing).Â I think you would find that when you started to control for this perception, reality would get in the way; once you started eating the cake you would see that you don’t have that part of the cake anymore and once you stopped eating and having the cake instead you would see that you are not eating it. It’s just a physical impossibility to have yor cake and eat it too.

RM: The MOL solution to such a conflict would, indeed, involve going up a level because the solution to conflicts typically involves changing the way we set the references (goals) for the perceptions that we are controlling.Â The solution itself will be unique to the person who has the conflict but the process of finding the solution would be called reorganization. Reorganization simply means regaining control by changing the way you control when you don’t know what kind of change to make in order to regain control. So the only way to try to regain controlÂ is to make random changes in the the existing parameters of control. Such random changes can presumably be made in any functional aspect of the control hierarchy – how we perceive, how we compare perception to reference, how error drives output, how output is connected to lower level systems, how inputs are connected to higher level systems, etc. Since there is very little research on how reorganization works there is no way to say whether reorganization works on all or some of these functions. But I think one aspect of the reorganization model that is almost certainly correct is that it involves making random changes at a rate that is proportional to the rate of change in the error, the variable that is presumably controlled by the reorganization system.Â Â

RM: In slide 12 you ask some questions about the conclusions in Tim and my paper on the change process in psychotherapy. As to question 1, a random change in input is a random change in the input function; same for the output function, though they both have to be changed in concert in order to maintain negative feedback in the control loop. But to make this more concrete I’ve attached a spreadsheet model of a hierarchy of control systems that lets you do the reorganizing of the input (and corresponding output) functions yourself. The spreadsheet consists of 3 levels of control systems with six systems at each level; the six level 1 systems control six different scalar variables; the six level 2 systems control six different linear combinations of the level 1 perceptions; and the six level 3 systems control six different logical combinations of the level 2 perceptions. So control systems at levels 1-3 control different types of perceptions, which correspond to Powers’ intensities, sensations and relationships, respectively. By pressing and holding the F9 key you can run the model, which means all perceptions will be kept under control in the face of randomly varying disturbances to the environmental variables of which the perceptions are a function. The number in the “Average Error” column shows how well the systems at each level are doing; the smaller the average error number, the better.Â

RM: You can change the input functions at level 2 by changing the numbers in column N that are associated the with Systems listed in column M. Some changes will create a conflict between systems in the hierarchy. For example, if you change the perceptual input function for system 4 from 34 to 24 (so system 4 is controlling the same perception as system 3) you will see (if you hold down F9)Â that the average error at level 2 goes up as does the error at level 3. But the error at level 1 remains small. So this model demonstrates the fact that conflict results from controlling the same perceptual variable relative to different references and that the loss of control due to the conflict is at the level of the systems in conflict (level 2 in this case) and for systems above the conflict that use the systems in conflict (system 3 level 3 in this case); but there is no loss of control at the level below the conflict (level 1).Â Once you’ve had enough of the conflict you can solve it by changing the function for system 4 at level 2 from 34 back to 24. Hold F9 down and watch all the errors go back to normal. If you have any questions about what is going on with this spreadsheet model feel free to email or Skype (rickmarken) me.Â

Â RM: You ask how the reorganization system we describe in our paper would be biologically organized. I don’t know but I think that before we start trying to figure that out we should figure out whether or not reorganization works as assumed by the PCT model. Finally you ask whether the reorganization process described in our paper would be simpler if it were part of the control system itself. It may be but I can’t think of how that would work. But it’s that’s really a modeling question. Powers has shown via computer modeling how the reorganization algorithm described in Tim and my paper could work to develop the ability to control arm position. Here’s the model:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/yq725ddbxr67wix/ArmControlReorg.exe?dl=0

RM: I would be very interested in seeing a model that implementsÂ reorganization as part of a control system or as part of a hierarchy of control systems (as you show in slide 15). If you can program I think that would be a great project if you are interested in testing models of reorganization.Â

RM: Anyway, I really appreciate your interest in Tim and my paper, my first and only venture into the world of clinical psychology.Â I hope these comments are helpful.Â

Best regards’

Rick

newhierarchy.xlsx (25 KB)

···

On Thu, Jan 24, 2019 at 7:20 AM “Hullu, Eva de” csgnet@lists.illinois.edu wrote:

–
Richard S. MarkenÂ

"Perfection is achieved not when you have nothing more to add, but when you
have nothing left to take away.â€?
Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â --Antoine de Saint-Exupery

MartinT · January 27, 2019, 5:27am

[Martin Taylor 2019.01.26.23.54]

I'm sorry my writing is so obscure. I cannot relate your question to

anything that I have written, but I have reposted at least twice the
diagram I originally posted showing the circuit that can function
exactly like the Powers level interconnection, and have pointed out
that if a perceptual function at level N receives as input the
reference an error values of a control unit at level N-1, it can do
whatever a perceptual function at level N could do when it receives
as input the perceptual signal from a level N-1 unit. I don’t need
to draw the connections again, do I? For any hierarchical PCT
diagram that shows the perceptual signal for level N-1 units going
up to level N units, and reference values being sent from level N
units to level N-1 comparators, just erase the perceptual signal
line and add two lines from the level N-1 comparator, one from its
reference value input and one from its error output. That’s the only
difference. The performance is the same in respect of perceptual
control, but allows other possibilities.
I think also it should have been clear that Friston isn’t saying
anything about references. That concept doesn’t appear in what I
have read of his work. I don’t think he considers “control” in the
same way as in any version of PCT. Friston doesn’t consider error,
either. If you wan to know what Friston wants to say, don’t ask me
any more. Some of his papers, including the Seth and Friston one,
are freely available on line, and I think you would get a more
accurate idea, if you are interested, from him than from me.
Are you asking what is he difference between an electric shock and
the amount of salt in a bucket of water? It sounds like that? A
neural current is simply an averaged rate of electric shocks, after
all, and the amount of salt in a bucket is a concentration. I don’
know how to answer such a question.
I’m rather fed up with this everlasting line of attack from you. I
don’t think you have ever offered evidence to deny what Bill Powers
said and what is physically and mathematically almost self-evident.
If you have one control loop, in which there exists a perception of
some function of environmental variables I call a CEV, when that CEV
changes, so does the perception, and when the perception changes,
the output action changes the CEV. If the output action doesn’t
change the CEV, neither does it change the perception of the CEV. It’s up to you to demonstrate two things (1) that it is possible for
the perceptual value to be controlled without the CEV showing all
the properties of being controlled, such as remaining nearly stable
despite changing influences from the environment, and (2) that the
organism could survive if it controlled its perceptions while not
similarly affecting the environment.
There is a third thing, if you manage to find a physically and
mathematically correct answer to these two points. This is why it is
permissible for you to question the accuracy of Bill Powers, as you
used to do especially in respect of the Figure 14.1 to which you now
refer so often, while it is impermissible for anyone else to suggest
that the Powers version of PCT may not be the only way perceptual
control structures are put together.
Until you demonstrate those two things, and hopefully the third, I
see no purpose in responding to what I see as simple trolling.
Martin

···

On 2019/01/26 9:55 PM, “Boris Hartman”
( via csgnet Mailing List) wrote:

boris.hartman@masicom.net

        Evy,

Martin,

        I
just extracted some problems from Martin answers.

          MT: How could new levels be created between
the control level as top level and other levels?

          MT: Q1 How could the output function also
transmit an error function to the input in the same level?
[I have no idea, my problem is to understand where the error travels to, and how].

        MT : Right. That's why I mentioned the circuit based on Seth
and Friston, which makes available to upper levels all three
of the variables connected to the comparator, rather than
just the perceptual value.

        HB
: I’ve asked you two times Martin whether Friston is saying
that “references” are “tarvelling” upward hierarchy and you
didn’t answer yet ? Andi f that is true I’m interested how ?
Can you change diagram on p. 191 (B:CP, 2005) so that we can
see clearly how it looks like if you put Fristons’ “control”
knowledge into PCT ? Talking and phylosophing is not helping
much to understand what Friston wanted to say.

        MT
: A related question, though it may not seem like one to you
at this moment: In your model, must the perceptual value for
the top-level “control of control” be represented by a
neural current, or could it be something else, such as the
concentration of some biochemical?

        HB
: What’s the difference ?

        HB
: I don’t understand Martin of what kind
of generality you are talking about ? I’m sure that
at least me and Rick do not agree with what you are saying.
I thought that about generality in PCT have to decide PCT
statements. Why didn’t you use them ?

Evadeh · January 27, 2019, 8:40pm

[Eva de Hullu 2019-01-27_19:49:27 UTC]

Hi Erling,
from all the reactions Iâ€™m getting the idea that the having cake and eating it situation is actually not an example of reorganization (this would also mean that the situation of the client accepting to be vulnerable and strong at the same time is also not reorganization,
these situations are essentially the same). I didnâ€™t read (or didnâ€™t register) the Passive Observation mode before and Iâ€™ll look into that further. I think itâ€™s important that we understand how MoL works, beyond the level of description. The great thing of
PCT is that we can build functional models, so letâ€™s not give up there.

Thereâ€™s obviously a lot of work to do on connecting the dots between reorganization, emotion (and the concept of gain), intrinsic variables and overall control. For me in understanding, and for all
of us to help others understand PCT as well.

To understand emotions as signals of (fast or slow) loss and gain of control feels just right. There is also interesting literature on Spinozaâ€™s view of emotions and how Nico Frijda thought about
that, that would fit the PCT framework. Spinoza is extra interesting because of his views on circulair causation and the inner cause of living organisms.

On the perceptual hierarchy – I took Bill Powerâ€™™s advise to try to visualize the perceptual levels for myself (http://www.pctresources.com/CSGnet/Files/CSGnet_Threads/PerceptLevels.pdf) , bottom
up, from the sensation build up from a set of intensities, upward. And then I tried to find pictures representing these relationships. They are not without error, but for me they work better than words.

Funny that you mentioned prezi to zoom in, Erling. In a first sketch of a PCT presentation in Prezi, I tried to zoom into 11 levels of perception. At the eleventh level, Prezi kept on crashing. The
result of my work is a bit unstable, but can still be found here:
https://prezi.com/view/dnzKNGD8Ke485KI20KG9/

I think the trouble Iâ€™m running into with the diagrams, is that I keep on interpreting the signals as going up and going down, successively. That must be wrong, because although we draw the diagrams
like that, they are actually nested and interconnected, and all the levels are interconnected (since higher level perceptions are build from lower level perceptions). So at this moment Iâ€™ll try to focus on what I actually am able to understand.

Iâ€™m quite serious about PCT since it has helped me regain control in the science of psychology. Weâ€™re at quite a loss in (clinical) psychology. The massive number of interventions that all have some
effectiveness but no theory, the small effect sizes in research that wonâ€™t get better with bigger and better studies and open science and all our best efforts. As a teacher in Psychology, Iâ€™ve long since learned that at least half of whatâ€™s in the textbooks
is wrong. I didnâ€™t know which half.

Many psychotherapists have learned ways to help people regain control, but without PCT, they didnâ€™t have the framework to understand their intuitions.

For people outside PCT, understanding the concept of control and circular causation and what they mean for psychology might be the start of a paradigm shift. For me itâ€™s important to understand the
basics right, in order to explain them to others in the right way. Thank you all for helping me (and others) along that way,

Eva

···

From: Erling Jorgensen EJorgensen@riverbendcmhc.org
Sent: Saturday, January 26, 2019 2:51 AM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Cc: Hullu, Eva de eva.dehullu@ou.nl
Subject: Re: Have your cake and eat it: understanding reorganization

[From Erling Jorgensen (2019.01.25 1855 EST)]

““Hullu, Eva de”” (eva.dehullu@ou.nl via csgnet Mailing List) <csgnet@lists.illinois.edu >
1/24/2019 10:20 AM

EJ: Hi, Eva. I like some of the things you’ve done with your Power Point presentation, and I’ve been following the discussion about cake! It often takes me a while to savor
and digest (sorry for the pun!) good ideas. That, and I have to work it around a very busy therapy practice as a psychologist in New Hampshire, USA.

EJ: In trying to describe Reorganization and/or the Method of Levels, I’m intrigued by what you propose on the “1 level up” slide on p.7. It feels right that if one mindfully
accepts perceptions as given – (is this slipping into Passive Observation mode, as per B:CP?) – and applies this to two control systems in conflict, then the error and the conflict would at least temporarily disappear. And while the conflict is on pause,
so to speak, that puts one in a position to consider different references for one or both of the l-level-down perceptions. To the extent that it changes signals within the loop, rather than parameters per se, I’m not sure I would call it PCT Reorganization,
but simply alternate Control.

EJ: However, in a later response to Warren, you do speculate about “the emergence of ‘insight’,” in coming up with new reference signals, so perhaps there is some new construction
of a different perceptual frame of reference. So in that sense, perhaps the term Reorganization does fit.

EJ: I’m also intrigued by what you raise as a meta-system that “controls control.” I’m not sure I would place it as a top-level system, but I think your instinct is right
that something attends to overall error or “sustained error,” as you say (or however it is to be measured). I have no real problem with considering this a type of Intrinsic Variable, monitored by, yes, a Reorganization system.

EJ: I have a couple of speculations about how to visualize such an error-monitoring system. I have long wondered whether the emotion system for humans (and other animals,
if Jaak Panksepp is right!), constitutes a way to modulate gain across the organism, in reversible ways. That’s a form of parameter change, but not necessarily a structurally permanent one. The way I envision it is as a system that specifically attends to
the change in error, the slope positive-or-negative in how error is changing.

EJ: I have also wondered, and I speculate in these terms in one of my contributions to the upcoming LCS-IV volume, whether the Amygdala might be the site in the brain where
such things are monitored. The amygdala does not have sufficient circuitry to construct all kinds of perceptual and reference functions itself to make the comparisons that generate error, so in that sense I think some of the neuroscience speculations are
wrong that make the amygdala a fast-acting salience system that then sends signals on for further processing. But it need not have all that circuitry. The rest of the PCT hierarchy is already doing that work.

EJ: All the amygdala would need to receive is collaterals from the comparators elsewhere in the hierarchy, along with functions that calculate their derivatives, or in other
words, how much and how fast they are changing. The role of this organ would then be to convert those calculations into system-wide signals that would modulate gain up or down, with effects that register perhaps through interoception as the subjective states
we call different emotions. It has long seemed the case that certain emotions correlate with how fast errors are changing. For instance: Fear (or anger) >> fast increase in error. Ecstasy >> fast decrease in error. Happiness >> moderate decline in error.
Depression >> high sustained error. And so forth, with various permutations.

EJ: In terms of diagramming such an arrangement, I would go back to the side-by-side portrayal of the Reorganization System and the Learned Hierarchy of Control (on page
11 of your slides), but with Reorganization on the right-hand side. Then collaterals can easily be portrayed as coming off of each error signal, to enter a derivative-calculating function in the amygdala. Etc., etc. (to quote “The King and I” musical.)

EJ: It just now occurs to me that maybe I am talking about a Third system, that doesn’t replace but only supplements the Reorganization System. There really is a whole homeostatic
monitoring system geared toward keeping essential physiological variables at their proper levels. So keep that on the left-hand side of the diagram. Part of its output is to generate and modify a working hierarchy of perceptual control, that can have relevant
effects on the environment. And that would be represented by the 11 cascading levels in the middle of the diagram. But then there is a third system, dealing with transient modulations of gain. It’s associated with the amygdala and the limbic system of the
brain, and correlates of the body’s emotion-related sensors. So let’s put this Gain Modulating system on the right-hand side of the diagram, with the linkages that I suggest in the previous paragraph. I don’t have good figure-generating software, but I kind
of like this idea.

EJ: My second type of speculation for visualizing a Reorganization system is not to have it coming from above or beside the learned hierarchy, but in a sense from within.
This admittedly gets much harder to diagram. Bill Powers’ conceptions of reorganization already speak of “genetic” sources for “intrinsic” variables, conveyed by “neural” or “chemical” signals. To me, all of that shouts “cellular”. Changes to functional
parameters accessible anywhere in the hierarchy, almost by definition, would have to come not from outside but from within the cells. And so, to speak of reorganization is to go “deep” inside the hierarchy. Too bad we can’t use Prezi diagrams, that allow
zooming in or out to whatever layer of scale is needed!

EJ: Anyway, these are just some thoughts and reactions. Thanks for your contributions!

P.S. I like the symbols you came up with to represent the 11 perceptual levels of the hierarchy!!

All the best,

Erling

Confidentiality: * This
message is intended only for the addressee, and may contain information that is privileged and confidential under HIPAA, 42CFR Part 2, and/or other applicable State and Federal laws. If you are not the addressee, or the employer or agent responsible for delivering
the message to the addressee, any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited.
If you have received this in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete the material from your computer. Thank you for your cooperation.*

Please also note: * Under 42 CFR part 2 you
are prohibited from making any further disclosure of information that identifies an individual as having or having had a substance use disorder unless it is expressly permitted by the written consent of the individual whose information is being disclosed or
as otherwise permitted by 42 CFR Part 2.*

““Hullu, Eva de”” (eva.dehullu@ou.nl via csgnet Mailing List) csgnet@lists.illinois.edu 1/24/2019 10:20 AM >>>

Dear all,

In getting a grip on PCT, I find the most difficult part is visualizing how reorganization works. As I understand so far, this is a concept thatâ€™s still very much under construction in the theory. Which also means that thereâ€™s room for theory development
J

In my thinking process, Iâ€™ve prepared a document with diagrams and ideas about reorganization, in which I took Powersâ€™ diagram as represented in Marken & Carey (2015) as a starting point but ultimately ended up with the
sense that the reorganization diagram should be simpler, not more complex.

Iâ€™d really appreciate your thoughts and comments, either in this mailing list or as comments on the slides.

Have your cake and eat it:
https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1N_hxZ-0AWUcEO_QOQ47HCyqtJVq0WpViaDjpaIlKF-s/edit?usp=sharing

Kind regards,

Eva

Marken, R. S., & Carey, T. A. (2015). Understanding the Change Process Involved in Solving Psychological Problems: A Model-based Approach to Understanding How Psychotherapy Works. Clin Psychol Psychother, 22(6), 580–590.

https://doi.org/10.1002/cpp.1919

FredNickols · January 27, 2019, 9:39pm

Fred Nickols (2019.01.27.1636 ET)

Eva:

I am delighted that your aim is to introduce PCT into psychotherapy. I wish you well.Â I am trying to introduce it to the world of work.Â

···

Fred Nickols
Chief Toolmaker
Distance Consulting LLC
â€œAssistance at A Distanceâ€?
www.nickols.us

JohnK · January 27, 2019, 10:05pm

John Kirkland (2019.01.28.1100 NZT)

Hi Eva:

I endorse Fred’s comments and have appreciated reading constructive sterling comments from others.

BTW, my mission is to introduce PCT to Education where I’ve tentatively named an (emerging) on-line course, “Pedagogy for Enlightenment”

(With a hat tip to Friere there)

Cheers

JohnK

···

On Mon, Jan 28, 2019 at 10:39 AM Fred Nickols csgnet@lists.illinois.edu wrote:

Fred Nickols (2019.01.27.1636 ET)

Eva:

I am delighted that your aim is to introduce PCT into psychotherapy. I wish you well.Â I am trying to introduce it to the world of work.Â

On Sun, Jan 27, 2019 at 3:40 PM “Hullu, Eva de” csgnet@lists.illinois.edu wrote:

[Eva de Hullu 2019-01-27_19:49:27 UTC]

Â

Hi Erling,

from all the reactions Iâ€™m getting the idea that the having cake and eating it situation is actually not an example of reorganization (this would also mean that the situation of the client accepting to be vulnerable and strong at the same time is also not reorganization,
these situations are essentially the same). I didnâ€™t read (or didnâ€™t register) the Passive Observation mode before and Iâ€™ll look into that further. I think itâ€™s important that we understand how MoL works, beyond the level of description. The great thing of
PCT is that we can build functional models, so letâ€™s not give up there.

Â

Thereâ€™s obviously a lot of work to do on connecting the dots between reorganization, emotion (and the concept of gain), intrinsic variables and overall control. For me in understanding, and for all
of us to help others understand PCT as well.

To understand emotions as signals of (fast or slow) loss and gain of control feels just right. There is also interesting literature on Spinozaâ€™s view of emotions and how Nico Frijda thought about
that, that would fit the PCT framework. Spinoza is extra interesting because of his views on circulair causation and the inner cause of living organisms.

Â

On the perceptual hierarchy – I took Bill Powerâ€™s advise too try to visualize the perceptual levels for myself (http://www.pctresources.com/CSGnet/Files/CSGnet_Threads/PerceptLevels.pdf ) , bottom
up, from the sensation build up from a set of intensities, upward. And then I tried to find pictures representing these relationships. They are not without error, but for me they work better than words.

Funny that you mentioned prezi to zoom in, Erling. In a first sketch of a PCT presentation in Prezi, I tried to zoom into 11 levels of perception. At the eleventh level, Prezi kept on crashing. The
result of my work is a bit unstable, but can still be found here:Â
https://prezi.com/view/dnzKNGD8Ke485KI20KG9/

Â

I think the trouble Iâ€™m running into with the diagrams, is that I keep on interpreting the signals as going up and going down, successively. That must be wrong, because although we draw the diagrams
like that, they are actually nested and interconnected, and all the levels are interconnected (since higher level perceptions are build from lower level perceptions). So at this moment Iâ€™ll try to focus on what I actually am able to understand.

Â

Iâ€™m quite serious about PCT since it has helped me regain control in the science of psychology. Weâ€™re at quite a loss in (clinical) psychology. The massive number of interventions that all have some
effectiveness but no theory, the small effect sizes in research that wonâ€™t get better with bigger and better studies and open science and all our best efforts. As a teacher in Psychology, Iâ€™ve long since learned that at least half of whatâ€™s in the textbooks
is wrong. I didnâ€™t know which half.

Many psychotherapists have learned ways to help people regain control, but without PCT, they didnâ€™t have the framework to understand their intuitions.

Â

For people outside PCT, understanding the concept of control and circular causation and what they mean for psychology might be the start of a paradigm shift. For me itâ€™s important to understand the
basics right, in order to explain them to others in the right way. Thank you all for helping me (and others) along that way,

Eva

Â

From: Erling Jorgensen EJorgensen@riverbendcmhc.org
Sent: Saturday, January 26, 2019 2:51 AM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Cc: Hullu, Eva de eva.dehullu@ou.nl
Subject: Re: Have your cake and eat it: understanding reorganization

Â

[From Erling Jorgensen (2019.01.25 1855 EST)]

““Hullu, Eva de”” (eva.dehullu@ou.nl via csgnet Mailing List) <csgnet@lists.illinois.edu >
1/24/2019 10:20 AM

Â

EJ:Â Hi, Eva.Â I likeÂ some of the things you’ve done with your Power Point presentation,Â and I’ve been following the discussion about cake!Â It often takes me a while to savor
andÂ digest (sorry for the pun!)Â good ideas.Â That, and I have to work it around a very busy therapy practice as a psychologist in New Hampshire, USA.Â

Â

EJ:Â In trying to describe Reorganization and/or the Method of Levels, I’m intrigued by what you propose on the “1 level up” slide onÂ p.7.Â It feels right that if one mindfully
accepts perceptions as given – (is this slipping into Passive Observation mode, as per B:CP?) – and applies this to two control systems in conflict, then the error and the conflict would at least temporarilyÂ disappear.Â And while the conflict is on pause,
so to speak, that puts one in a position to consider different references for one or both of the l-level-down perceptions.Â To the extent that it changes signals within the loop, rather than parameters per se, I’m not sure I would call it PCT Reorganization,
but simply alternateÂ Control.Â

Â

EJ:Â However, in a later response to Warren, you do speculate about “the emergence of ‘insight’,” in coming up with new reference signals, so perhaps there is some new construction
of a different perceptual frame of reference.Â So in that sense, perhaps the term Reorganization doesÂ fit.Â

Â

EJ:Â I’m also intrigued by what you raise as a meta-system that "controls control."Â I’m not sure I would place it as a top-level system, but I think your instinct is right
that something attends to overall error or “sustained error,” as you sayÂ (or however it is to be measured).Â I have no real problem with considering this a type of Intrinsic Variable, monitored by, yes, a Reorganization system.Â

Â

EJ:Â I have a couple of speculations about how to visualize such an error-monitoring system.Â I have long wondered whether the emotion system for humans (and other animals,
if Jaak Panksepp is right!), constitutes a way to modulate gain across the organism, in reversible ways.Â That’s a form ofÂ parameter change, but not necessarily a structurallyÂ permanent one.Â The way I envision it is as a system that specificallyÂ attends to
the change in error, the slope positive-or-negativeÂ in how error is changing.Â

Â

EJ:Â I have also wondered, and I speculate in these terms in one of my contributions to the upcoming LCS-IV volume, whether the Amygdala might be the site in the brain where
such things are monitored.Â The amygdala does not have sufficient circuitry to construct all kinds of perceptual and referenceÂ functions itselfÂ to make the comparisons that generate error, so in that sense I think some of the neuroscience speculations are
wrong that make the amygdala a fast-acting salience system that then sends signals on for further processing.Â But it need not have all that circuitry.Â The rest of the PCT hierarchy is already doing that work.Â

Â

EJ:Â All the amygdala would need to receive is collaterals from the comparators elsewhere in the hierarchy, along with functions that calculate their derivatives, or in other
words, how much and how fast they are changing.Â The role of this organ would then be to convert those calculations into system-wide signals that would modulate gain up or down, with effects that register perhaps through interoception as the subjective states
we call different emotions.Â It has long seemed the case that certain emotions correlate with how fast errors are changing.Â For instance:Â Fear (or anger) >> fast increase in error.Â Ecstasy >> fast decrease in error.Â Happiness >> moderate decline in error.Â
Depression >> high sustained error.Â And so forth, with various permutations.Â

Â

EJ:Â In terms of diagramming such an arrangement, I would go back to the side-by-side portrayal of the Reorganization System and the Learned Hierarchy of Control (on page
11 of your slides), but with Reorganization on the right-hand side.Â Then collaterals can easily be portrayed as coming off of each error signal, to enter a derivative-calculating function in the amygdala.Â Etc., etc. (to quote “The King and I” musical.)Â

Â

EJ:Â It just now occurs to me that maybe I am talking about a Third system, that doesn’t replace but only supplements the Reorganization System.Â There really is a whole homeostatic
monitoring system geared toward keeping essential physiological variables at their proper levels.Â So keep that on the left-hand side of the diagram.Â Part of its output is to generate and modify a working hierarchy of perceptual control, that can have relevant
effects on the environment.Â And that would be represented by the 11 cascading levels in the middle of the diagram.Â But then there is a third system, dealing with transient modulations of gain.Â It’s associated with the amygdala and the limbic system of the
brain, and correlates of the body’s emotion-related sensors.Â So let’s put this Gain Modulating system on the right-hand side of the diagram, with the linkages that I suggest in the previous paragraph.Â I don’t have good figure-generating software, but I kind
of like this idea.Â

Â

EJ:Â My second type of speculation for visualizing a Reorganization system is not to have it coming from above or beside the learned hierarchy, but in a sense from within.Â
This admittedly gets much harder to diagram.Â Bill Powers’ conceptions of reorganization already speak of “genetic” sources for “intrinsic” variables, conveyed by “neural” or “chemical” signals.Â To me, all of that shouts “cellular”.Â Changes to functional
parameters accessibleÂ anywhere in the hierarchy, almost by definition, would have to come not from outside but from within the cells.Â And so, to speak of reorganization is to go “deep” inside the hierarchy.Â Too bad we can’t use Prezi diagrams, that allow
zooming in or out to whatever layer of scale is needed!Â

Â

EJ:Â Anyway, these are just some thoughts and reactions.Â Thanks for your contributions!Â

Â

P.S.Â I like the symbols you came up with to represent theÂ 11Â perceptual levels of the hierarchy!!Â

Â

All the best,Â

Erling

Â

Confidentiality: * This
message is intended only for the addressee, and may contain information that is privileged and confidential under HIPAA, 42CFR Part 2, and/or other applicable State and Federal laws. If you are not the addressee, or the employer or agent responsible for delivering
the message to the addressee, any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited.
If you have received this in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete the material from your computer. Thank you for your cooperation.*

Please also note: * Under 42 CFR part 2 you
are prohibited from making any further disclosure of information that identifies an individual as having or having had a substance use disorder unless it is expressly permitted by the written consent of the individual whose information is being disclosed or
as otherwise permitted by 42 CFR Part 2.*

““Hullu, Eva de”” (eva.dehullu@ou.nl via csgnet Mailing List) csgnet@lists.illinois.edu 1/24/2019 10:20 AM >>>

Â

Dear all,

In getting a grip on PCT, I find the most difficult part is visualizing how reorganization works. As I understand so far, this is a concept thatâ€™s still very much under construction in the theory. Which also means that thereâ€™s room for theory development
J

In my thinking process, Iâ€™ve prepared a document with diagrams and ideas about reorganization, in which I took Powersâ€™ diagram as represented in Marken & Carey (2015) as a starting point but ultimately ended up with the
sense that the reorganization diagram should be simpler, not more complex.

Iâ€™d really appreciate your thoughts and comments, either in this mailing list or as comments on the slides.

Have your cake and eat it:
https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1N_hxZ-0AWUcEO_QOQ47HCyqtJVq0WpViaDjpaIlKF-s/edit?usp=sharing

Â

Kind regards,

Eva

Â

Marken, R. S., & Carey, T. A. (2015). Understanding the Change Process Involved in Solving Psychological Problems: A Model-based Approach to Understanding How Psychotherapy Works. Clin Psychol Psychother, 22(6), 580–590.

https://doi.org/10.1002/cpp.1919

Â

Deze e-mail is uitsluitend bestemd voor de geadresseerde(n). Verstrekking aan en gebruik door anderen is niet toegestaan. Open Universiteit sluit iedere aansprakelijkheid uit die voortvloeit uit elektronische
verzending. Aan de inhoud van deze e-mail en/of eventueel toegevoegde bijlagen kunnen geen rechten worden ontleend.

This e-mail is intended exclusively for the addressee(s), and may not be passed on to, or made available for use by any person other than the addressee(s). Open Universiteit rules out any and every liability resulting from any electronic transmission. No rights
may be derived from the contents of this message.

–
Fred Nickols
Chief Toolmaker
Distance Consulting LLC
â€œAssistance at A Distanceâ€?
www.nickols.us

rsmarken · January 28, 2019, 11:38pm

[From Rick Marken (2019.01.28.15:30)]

RM: In slide 12 you ask some questions about the conclusions in Tim and my paper on the change process in psychotherapy. As to question 1, a random change in input is a random change in the input function; same for the output function, though they both have to be changed in concert in order to maintain negative feedback in the control loop. But to make this more concrete I’ve attached a spreadsheet model of a hierarchy of control systems that lets you do the reorganizing of the input (and corresponding output) functions yourself.

RM: I assume that there has been no discussion of this because you all are having difficulty running the spreadsheet model of a hierarchical control system that I posted. If you are running in Excel on a PC then you might have to pull down the “File” menu, select “Options” and then select “Formulas”; in the template that appears check “Manual” and “Enable iterative Calculation” and check “OK” and you are good to go. You run the model by holding down the F9 key as I said in the earlier post.

RM: If you are running in Excel on a Mac pull down the “Excel” menu and select “Preferences” then select “Calculation” from the template and then check “Manually” and “Limit iteration” and click on “OK”. You run the model by holding down the “command” and “+/=” keys simultaneously.

RM: I guess I should also mention that you are “reorganizing” the control hierarchy when you change the level 2 perception being controlled by changing the number in column N that is next to the system name in column M. The number in column N is the address of a perceptual function, each of which is just a linear combination (with coefficients = 1 or -1) of the six “intensity” perceptions controlled at level 1.

RM: If anyone tries this and is interested I’ll be happy to explain (on the net) what all the graphics and numbers in the spreadsheet are all about.

BestÂ

Rick

···

–
Richard S. MarkenÂ

"Perfection is achieved not when you have nothing more to add, but when you
have nothing left to take away.â?
Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â --Antoine de Saint-Exupery

Evadeh · January 29, 2019, 9:12am

[Eva de Hullu 2019-01-29_08:23:14 UTC]

Dear all,

Â·
Can I look at this mailinglist group as a control system for learning about PCT?

o
I shared my perception on some aspects of PCT with the group. I noted some errors myself, things that I didnâ€™t understand.

o
My perceptions were compared by many of you to your own references. This resulted in some more errors noted.

o
Thus the output by the members of the mailinglist contained many (â€˜randomâ€™) perceptions that could possibly resolve my errors or the errors of others.

o
Looking at the conversation, we seem to control for understanding PCT (with individual references for what â€˜understanding PCTâ€™ means). Some control for the ease of archiving this mailinglist (thanks Bruce for
sharing Eetuâ€™s timestamp code, next time Iâ€™ll also share my presentation in a pdf attachment instead of a link). Noting that a disturbance of the friendly tone in the conversation was countered by remarks (and probably some silent error in others as well),
this must also be under control.

Â·
Since all suggestions and remarks by members of this list are attached to individuals own perceptual hierarchies, there is rarely a perfect match between what I need to resolve my error and what someone else
suggests. And every step in this process changes the order of my perceptions. I find this a common situation in conversations with other human beings, rarely are we able to solve someone elseâ€™s error or share common perceptions. So weâ€™ll have to do with the
sloppy ways of human communications, with words and diagrams and thoughts and ideas.

However, within this process, some reorganization took place on my part.

I realized that my efforts to draw a diagram of the reorganization system suffered under the assumption of linear causality. I had the idea that signals had to travel somewhere, implying a linear cause-effect
model. I think the hardest thing about accepting PCT is accepting that these models do not fit in linear causality. So while diagrams might help explain some aspects of the theory, the ultimate model does not fit in a diagram in two dimensions.

So when my idea was that control must be the top level of a hierarchy, this was under the assumption that signals in the hierarchy travelled upwards of downwards. They donâ€™t travel, the signals are there in
a continous loop. And control is IN the continous loop, so it doesnâ€™t have to be the top level. I find the perceptual hierarchy that shows how perceptions of higher levels are made from perceptions of lower levels helpful in this regard. In essence, each level
contains all levels below it. The form of this remains mind-boggling to me.

Rick, Iâ€™d love to understand how the excel sheet you provided shows the reorganization in levels. I also just encountered the link in Gary Czikoâ€™s The Things We Do (2000), with the note that the program shows
a working model of goals and subgoals, so it is actually exactly what I was looking for. Iâ€™ll try it out and if I donâ€™t get it, Iâ€™ll ask for help.

On reorganization: probably the higher-level understanding of this process is that reorganization takes different forms. Also in Cziko (p 210-211): Reorganization can take place in three major ways:

a.
Resetting one or more reference levels. For example: lower the driving speed of your car in case of snow. Since you donâ€™t know the right reference for driving on snow, this resetting will involve some degree
of trial and error (variation and selection).

b.
Reorganizing perceptual functions can occur in at least two ways:

i. Trying out various combinations of lower-order perceptions can create new higher-level ones.

ii. Make the perceptual function more sensitive to certain aspects of the environment (change the gain of the perceptual function)

c.
Modification of the output functions, which results in changed reference levels for lower-level control systems. This involves connecting to other lower-level control systems (or creating new control systems)
in case of learning a new skill.

So what happens in MoL when someone realizes she can have her cake and eat it too? I think itâ€™s probably the case that in MoL, trying out various combinations of lower level perceptions (the new combination
of having the cake and eating it, while maintaining the observer perspective that makes this possible) can create a new higher-level perception that solves the conflict.

So my idea of what reorganization looks likes, has broadened to all the ways in which the control system hierarchy is able to change in order to regain control.

Kind regards and lots of thanks,
Eva

···

[From Rick Marken (2019.01.28.15:30)]

RM: In slide 12 you ask some questions about the conclusions in Tim and my paper on the change process in psychotherapy. As to question 1, a random change in input is a random change in the input function; same for the output function,
though they both have to be changed in concert in order to maintain negative feedback in the control loop. But to make this more concrete I’ve attached a spreadsheet model of a hierarchy of control systems that lets you do the reorganizing of the input (and
corresponding output) functions yourself.

RM: I assume that there has been no discussion of this because you all are having difficulty running the spreadsheet model of a hierarchical control system that I posted. If you are running in Excel on a PC then you might have to pull down
the “File” menu, select “Options” and then select “Formulas”; in the template that appears check “Manual” and “Enable iterative Calculation” and check “OK” and you are good to go. You run the model by holding down the F9 key as I said in the earlier post.

RM: If you are running in Excel on a Mac pull down the “Excel” menu and select “Preferences” then select “Calculation” from the template and then check “Manually” and “Limit iteration” and click on “OK”. You run the model by holding down
the “command” and “+/=” keys simultaneously.

RM: I guess I should also mention that you are “reorganizing” the control hierarchy when you change the level 2 perception being controlled by changing the number in column N that is next to the system name in column M. The number in column
N is the address of a perceptual function, each of which is just a linear combination (with coefficients = 1 or -1) of the six “intensity” perceptions controlled at level 1.

RM: If anyone tries this and is interested I’ll be happy to explain (on the net) what all the graphics and numbers in the spreadsheet are all about.

Best

Rick

–

Richard S. Marken

"Perfection is achieved not when you have nothing more to add, but when you

have nothing left to take away.â€?

                            --Antoine de Saint-Exupery

EetuP · January 29, 2019, 2:23pm

[Eetu Pikkarainen 2019-01-29_14:11:08 UTC]

Hi all!

First great thanks to Eva for very inspiring messages, especially the one below.

Second a comment to the Martinâ€™s attachment in [Martin Taylor 2019.-1.26.14.07]: For me it sounds better to say that an output from
the Perceptual Control Hierarchy can set the perception for a homeostatic loop rather that the reference. Perhaps you mean that all those external effects to a multipart homeostatic loop are references but I would rather think them as perceptions.

And third as an attachment a quick and concise compilation of my thoughts which I have learned until now
about the questions discussed in this thread. Comments are welcome!

Reorganization as a Control of Control.pdf (127 KB)

···

Eetu

Please, regard all my statements as questions,

no matter how they are formulated.

From: “Hullu, Eva de” csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Sent: Tuesday, January 29, 2019 11:12 AM
To: rsmarken@gmail.com
Cc: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: RE: Have your cake and eat it: understanding reorganization

[Eva de Hullu 2019-01-29_08:23:14 UTC]

Dear all,

Can I look at this mailinglist group as a control system for learning about PCT?
I shared my perception on some aspects of PCT with the group. I noted some errors myself, things that I didnâ€™t understand.
My perceptions were compared by many of you to your own references. This resulted in some more errors noted.
Thus the output by the members of the mailinglist contained many (â€˜randomâ€™) perceptions that could possibly resolve my errors or the errors of others.
Looking at the conversation, we seem to control for understanding PCT (with individual references for what â€˜understanding PCTâ€™ means). Some control for the ease of archiving this mailinglist (thanks Bruce for sharing Eetuâ€™s timestamp code,
next time Iâ€™ll also share my presentation in a pdf attachment instead of a link). Noting that a disturbance of the friendly tone in the conversation was countered by remarks (and probably some silent error in others as well), this must also be under control.
Since all suggestions and remarks by members of this list are attached to individuals own perceptual hierarchies, there is rarely a perfect match between what I need to resolve my error and what someone else suggests. And every step in this
process changes the order of my perceptions. I find this a common situation in conversations with other human beings, rarely are we able to solve someone elseâ€™s error or share common perceptions. So weâ€™ll have to do with the sloppy ways of human communications,
with words and diagrams and thoughts and ideas.