From [ Marc Abrams (2003.05.03.1547) ]
Purpose: To try and get a dialogue going with Dick to help both Dick and
I come to better “understand” each other in our mutual pursuit
of PCT/HPCT knowledge. I appreciate the thoughtfulness of the post and I
hope I reciprocate in kind. I will no longer use the metaphor Physicist/
Chemist after this post. I will simply refer to it as the Physics model
vs. The Cognitive or Cog model. I would also suggest reading the entire
post before replying to each segment.
[From Dick
Robertson,2003.05.03.1442CDT]
I don’t understand the expression,
"talking about the results of theinteractions in the hierarchy…" in the absence of any particular
result towhich you might refer.
Here I am talking about “normative” “results”. I
realized in my ongoing discussions with Rick that I, and usually everyone
else, talks about PCT/HPCT in two “modes”. One is the
“technical model mode”, what I simply call Technical. I will
use a capital letter to begin the word and no quotes, to use a word as it
is defined by BP for the model in B:CP. The other “mode” is the
“normative” or normal, ambiguous, way we use it, meaning each
of us might have a slightly if not grossly different
“understanding” of the word or phrase and does not apply to
the model or Technical definition. Everybody should make a copy of the
Glossary in B:CP and keep it by the computer. I will. LOL
So here I am talking about the “cumulative affects” of any
combination of levels, variables, and control processes.
Has this helped?
Some would say I am talking
about more then (sic) “perceptions”. I am talkingabout “ideas”, “thoughts”, etc.with
“perceptions” being defined only as oursensory impressions; with “thoughts” and “ideas”
being at some “higher” levelfunction.
This might seem completely unambiguous to some people, but unfortunately,
notto me. By “our sensor impressions,” I would expect you
mean the first ordersignals coming from the transducers for sight, sound, smell, taste,
etc.
Yes. So far that is what I think. But that is open to revision. One of
the definitions from the dictionary;
1 : the act or process of
impressing : as
a (1) : an affecting by stamping, bearing upon, pressing,
pressing into, or otherwise exerting a physical force that marks,
grooves, embosses, or prints in some way.
Now, although the “force” may not be “physical” the
rest of the definition holds, so, I would replace the word
“physical” with the word “any” in the above
definition . Is it just “first level” that provides the
“impression” or a combination of “level 1” and 2? Or
some other combination? Don’t know. I hope to find out.
However, when you say,
“`perceptions’” being defined only as our sensoryimpressions;" I have trouble with what is left out in that for the
rest of whatI use the term, perceptions for. For example, I sometimes am
conscious ofthinking a sentence I want to say to someone, then thinking, "No,
that’s notwhat I mean." As I apply PCT I consider that a system
on my Principle levelwas _perceiving_an output of my Program level communication program,
andenduring/experiencing (do we have a proper technical term for this?)
error.All of this was occurring at higher levels, as I see it. I don’t
see wherefirst order signals would be involved at all.
Boy am I glad you brought this up. You speak here of our confounding of
Technical and “normative” uses of concepts and words. We often
toss around concepts like “principle level” and “system
level” as if they have some Technical meaning in the model. They
don’t. If you take the “labels” of the “levels” in
HPCT LITERALLY, that is the levels as proposed by Bill, you are making
a big mistake. The “levels” were meant to provide
“structure” and a starting point to the theory. If you look
in the Glossary in B:CP you will see that “levels” are
not a defined term. Orders of Perception is. The reason for this is
extremely important Bill is proposing that
Perceptions/“perceptions” are “built” with the
Hierarchy of Control Systems ( Hierarchy for short ). This is HUGE.
Philosophers have been struggling for 300+ years in trying to
“determine” how our “ideas”, “thoughts”,
“perceptions” originate. The correct answer is; THE HIERARCHY
OF CONTROL SYSTEMS. IF true, ( and I believe it is ) that’s major
news. Now all of your “upper level”
Perceptions/“perceptions” are composed of all
“levels” below the level that “thought” occurs.
“Thought” occurs at the “program level”. So
everything you “know” must be known at the “program
level”. Bill will tell you, and I agree, that the “labels”
and probably the “levels” will come under some adjustments
after experimentation and research. The important thing to remember is
STRUCTURE and RELATIONSHIPS. Those I do not believe will ever change.
I think Bill has it nailed. I don’t think a bad job of
“labeling” the Hierarchy either.
Again, this is extremely important. Have I clarified my position? Do you
agree? If I have not clarified please specify what the problem is. If you
disagree with my interpretation please explain your rationalization for
the disagreement.
Could you clarify whether you mean that you don’t see any need for a
hierarchy
of control systems in PCT, or do
you mean that for you “ideas, thought, etc.,”are also perceptions, or do you mean something completely
different?
I believe “combinations” of our
“perceptions”/Perceptions are our “thoughts”,
“ideas”, etc. The obvious ( or maybe it’s not so obvious )
next question is how do we “collect” these
Perceptions/“perceptions” into “ideas”,
“thoughts” and “use” them. Well, we
“collect” them in “memory”, and we use them at the
“program level”. Not very satisfying answers ( at least for me
) but the ones we are starting out with. It’ll get better.
I am surprised if Bill tried to
dissuade you from the idea that what areuntechnically (i.e. vulgarly, in the academic sense of the word)
called,“ideas”, “thoughts,” etc.could be referred to more
technically in PCT with theterm perceptions. If that were the case, I would like to know more
about it.
There is no Technical definitions for “idea” or
“thought” in B:CP. The Technical definition for Learning in
B:CP is;
“A loose term covering memory, programmed problem solving, and
reorganization”.
“Learning” in a “normative” sense is also a useful
concept. One provided by Argyris and Schon is one of my favorites; This
is gotten from ;Organizational Learning II: Theory, Method, and
Practice Pg. 3 I will produce it as printed, quotes, italics included.
None are added by me.
“Learning” may signify either a product (something
learned) or the process that yields such a product. In the first
sense, we might ask, “What have we learned?” referring to an
accumulation of information in the form of knowledge or skill; in the
second sense, “How do we learn?” referring to a learning
activity that may be well or badly performed. When we speak of
“drawing lessons from experience,” for example, we implicitly
treat “lessons” as learning product and “lesson
drawing” as learning process. The product/process ambiguity, which
cuts across the many different meanings scholars and practitioners give
to learning in general, is important to every other question
…"
This makes 3 different “definitions” for
Learning/“learning”. All with distinct meanings. The Technical
one dealing directly with the HPCT model and no current Technical
definitions for “ideas” or “thoughts”
What more would you like to know about it? At this point I am just about
at my limit, but I know I am just at the Very, very beginning.
Am I correct in this
assumption Bill? Have Imade my intent clear so far?
Well, hopefully to Bill, not, unfortunately to me, but maybe that is
notimportant.
It sure is important to me. I hope we are making some progress toward
some clarification. Are things still as muddy as they were
before?
I have some difficulty here.
The kind of “types and levels” seems to me aquestion of postulations to build the elements of a theoretical model,
whichBill derived from his personal, introspectional analysis of
“paradigm” shifts(if you will) in moving from the most concrete to the most abstract kinds
ofperceptions in his experience.
The utilization of memory, on the other hand, seems to be more a question
underinvestigation in neuropsychology. Or, am I missing the intent of
the question?
I believe I covered this already. Have I? If you don’t believe that
memory is a “proper question” for HPCT we are in different
universes in terms of our “understandings” of HPCT model and I
am afraid no amount of communication will bridge the gap.
What seemed heretorfore a
semi-technical discussion to increase the precisionwith which we use terms like perception–seems here to have blown up into
amuch larger, and necessarily vaguer, issue of how we think and
interact inbecoming members of larger systems. With such a big jump of focus,
thequestion of precision flies out the window for me.
“Semi-technical”. Please elaborate. Either a word or concept is
in fact defined in the B:CP Glossary and is Technical word/concept with
regard to the model or is not, and is normative, i.e. open to multiple
interpretations. Where does “semi-technical” fit and what does
it “mean”?
The focus has not jumped. My focus is at the “chemistry level”
( cognition ), not the “physics” “level” of
HPCT
Within that metaphor I think some
of us, like David, Ed Ford and me, would bemore like pharmacists than either physicists or chemists (although I
think ourTesting the Self paper was on the level at least of
“chemistry.”)
No, I think your a “chemist”. Any person who could
“use” a “cognitive” model of HPCT is a
“chemist”. I believe very strongly every person
interested in neuroscience, cognition, psychology, neuropsychiatry,
Psychophysiology, Learning, etc. should be on this list, No
exceptions.
and others simply interested
3rd parties. The commonthread between all of us is we are “consumers” of both
“chemistry” and“physics” whether we like it or not. :-). This list has
been veryintolerant of “chemists”, I believe, in the mistaken
belief, that you mustbe a “physicist” in order to be a
“chemist”.Well, that doesn’t quite jibe with my experience.
Do you still believe this after the clarification on who a
“chemist” might be? Could you please show some evidence
of this. I see a list of 105 people on this list after 13
years. Something is not right. I believe it is our lack of
“chemistry” ( cognition ) that has kept droves of people away.
Not Rick Marken. I hope to try and change that.
Has the metaphor been helpful? If not, why? What did I
miss?Your intention in proposing it. I. e. what you want to perceive in
youraudience.
My intention was to try and clarify the difference between the
Technical and the “normative”. Both are valid and necessary for
HPCT study. We seem to confound the two on this list causing a lot of
unnecessary confusion and frustration for both “Physicists” and
“chemists”.
That would be good, I
think.
What do you think some of the drawbacks might be to talking about the 4
modes?
Were you around when I described
(for the 3rd or 4th time) on the net my failedattempt to construct a model of a Principle → Program operation
of a numberof students’ controlling their grades in an introductory Psych/PCT
class?
No. Do you have a cite for me in the archives. This does not surprise me.
In fact this corroborates my “adjusting for error” argument
with Rick. “Goals” do not cascade down in HPCT. Not the way
almost everyone thinks, anyway.
What
it showed, I think, was some of the difficulties of constructing models
formore complex systems without the technology of measurement having
developed toreach the level of subsidiary systems.
I believe I have such “measuring” tools. I will not elaborate
on this at this time. I believe I can use human judgement alone to
“derive” personal ratio scales so as to be able to compare two
or more individuals and see if their concepts and/or words hold similar
or divergent values. So I would be able to see if one persons
“angry” is another persons “mad”. These ratio scales
and the data that can be accumulated can then be used in simulations and
with other interesting “analytical tools”. The measuring tool
“quantifies” human judgement. How useful this will be needs to
be determined, but there are a number of “useful” tools out
there including Graph analysis software ( networks; points and edges )
With this in mind, discussions
of “learning”, “planning or goal setting”,etc. are made useful. In fact, in discussing the above it would
probably beextremely useful to talk about the various “modes”
relative to some“cognitive” process we have in mind. I will provide
examples of what I meanin my post on the “modes”
That would be good, I think.
Again, what are your reservations?
We might even be able to
derive some “technical” definitions for suchthings as “learning” and
“ideas”.
Oops! We already have a Technical definition for Learning, we need some
“normative” ones. We have nothing for
“ideas”
Again, Happy BD Dick, Another 100 healthy ones.
Marc
···
At 02:43 PM 5/3/2003 -0500, you wrote: