HPCT and "Human Cognition" & Happy Birthday To Dick Robertson

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 the

interactions in the hierarchy…" in the absence of any particular
result to

which 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 talking

about “ideas”, “thoughts”, etc.with
“perceptions” being defined only as our

sensory impressions; with “thoughts” and “ideas”
being at some “higher” level

function.

This might seem completely unambiguous to some people, but unfortunately,
not

to me. By “our sensor impressions,” I would expect you
mean the first order

signals 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 sensory

impressions;" I have trouble with what is left out in that for the
rest of what

I use the term, perceptions for. For example, I sometimes am
conscious of

thinking a sentence I want to say to someone, then thinking, "No,
that’s not

what I mean." As I apply PCT I consider that a system
on my Principle level

was _perceiving_an output of my Program level communication program,
and

enduring/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 where

first 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 :slight_smile: )
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. :slight_smile: It’ll get better.

I am surprised if Bill tried to
dissuade you from the idea that what are

untechnically (i.e. vulgarly, in the academic sense of the word)
called,

“ideas”, “thoughts,” etc.could be referred to more
technically in PCT with the

term 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 I

made my intent clear so far?

Well, hopefully to Bill, not, unfortunately to me, but maybe that is
not

important.

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 a

question of postulations to build the elements of a theoretical model,
which

Bill derived from his personal, introspectional analysis of
“paradigm” shifts

(if you will) in moving from the most concrete to the most abstract kinds
of

perceptions in his experience.

The utilization of memory, on the other hand, seems to be more a question
under

investigation 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 precision

with which we use terms like perception–seems here to have blown up into
a

much larger, and necessarily vaguer, issue of how we think and
interact in

becoming members of larger systems. With such a big jump of focus,
the

question 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 be

more like pharmacists than either physicists or chemists (although I
think our

Testing 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 common

thread between all of us is we are “consumers” of both
“chemistry” and

“physics” whether we like it or not. :-). This list has
been very

intolerant of “chemists”, I believe, in the mistaken
belief, that you must

be 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
your

audience.

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 failed

attempt to construct a model of a Principle → Program operation
of a number

of 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
for

more complex systems without the technology of measurement having
developed to

reach 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 be

extremely useful to talk about the various “modes”
relative to some

“cognitive” process we have in mind. I will provide
examples of what I mean

in my post on the “modes”

That would be good, I think.

Again, what are your reservations? :slight_smile:

We might even be able to
derive some “technical” definitions for such

things 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:

[From Dick Robertson,2003.05.06.1356CDT]

Purpose: To reply to some comments of Marc’s and to clarifying where
I’d like to be coming from in regard to studying higher order systems.

Marc Abrams wrote:

From [ Marc Abrams (2003.05.03.1547) ]
Purpose: To try and get a dialogue going with Dick to help both Dick
and I (sic) 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 believe I can certainly see the effort you are putting into your posts.

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.
Not a biggie, in my opinion.

[From Dick Robertson,2003.05.03.1442CDT]
I don’t understand the expression,
"talking about the results of the

interactions in the hierarchy…" in the absence of any particular
result to

which you might refer.
Here I am talking about “normative” “results”.
That isn’t quite what I meant. I meant that if I don’t already have
a shared frame of reference about a term we bat back and forth then I need
a concrete example to understand the kind of phenomena you are generalizing
about.
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
What does LOL mean, BTW?
So here I am talking about the “cumulative affects”
of any combination of levels, variables, and control processes.
I’m not sure I understand this, but I’ll make a stab at it. Based
on what I gather from your earlier remarks I’m thinking that “cumulative
affects (or do you mean effects?”) refers to the fact that a higher order
system controls its perceptual variable by setting in motion a cascade
of Reference signals to all the subsidiary systems down the line.

Thus the control of the PV of interest is effectuated by accumulated
result of the corrective actions of the each of the contained subsidiaries.
If that is what you mean, I have to say for myself that in my understanding
of PCT the action of subsidiary systems is subsumed in a particular higher
order control effort and therefore is already implicit in any statement
about the action of the higher order. Therefore, talk about “cumulated
effects” (if that is what you meant) seems to me a redundancy.

Has this helped?
You be the judge.

Some would say I am talking about
more then (sic) “perceptions”. I am talking

about “ideas”, “thoughts”, etc.with “perceptions” being defined only
as our

sensory impressions; with “thoughts” and “ideas” being at some “higher”
level

function.
This might seem completely unambiguous to some people, but unfortunately,
not

to me. By “our sensor impressions,” I would expect you mean the
first order

signals 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 sensory

impressions;" I have trouble with what is left out in that for the
rest of what

I use the term, perceptions for. For example, I sometimes am
conscious of

thinking a sentence I want to say to someone, then thinking, "No, that’s
not

what I mean." As I apply PCT I consider that a system on
my Principle level

was _perceiving_an output of my Program level communication program,
and

enduring/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 where

first 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.
I do?
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.
Well, I guess I stand corrected there. I too regard Orders of Perception
as the more correctly technical term, but I considered my substitution
of “level” for Order as harmless in that I thought anyone would regard
them as synonymous in the particular context in question.
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 :slight_smile: ) 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. :slight_smile: It’ll get better.
I’ll leave what Ric has said about this stand for my reply too. I
don’t think I could improve on what he said.
I am surprised if Bill tried to
dissuade you from the idea that what are

untechnically (i.e. vulgarly, in the academic sense of the word) called,

“ideas”, “thoughts,” etc.could be referred to more technically in PCT
with the

term 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.

I’m a bit lost here. Other people’s attempts to clarify the use of
terms like learning in order distinguish the different ways people use
them are mildly interesting, but I don’t see what this has to do with what
I thought was your main goal: To contribute to the development of methodology
for studying the details of how higher order systems function and possibly,
could eventually be modeled?

Am I correct in this assumption
Bill? Have I

made my intent clear so far?
Well, hopefully to Bill, not, unfortunately to me, but maybe that is
not

important.

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 a

question of postulations to build the elements of a theoretical model,
which

Bill derived from his personal, introspectional analysis of “paradigm”
shifts

(if you will) in moving from the most concrete to the most abstract
kinds of

perceptions in his experience.
The utilization of memory, on the other hand, seems to be more a question
under

investigation 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
I’m still confused about “`proper question’ for HPCT.” For sure,
I am so far persuaded by Bill’s postulate that in the development of the
hierarchy perceptual signals input at the moment of intrinsic error reduction
become stored in memory to be available as reference signals for subsequent
control of comparable perceptual inputs. As far as I’m concerned
this makes sense without there existing a definite answer to the question
of the neurochemical mechanics of memory storage.
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 precision

with which we use terms like perception–seems here to have blown up
into a

much larger, and necessarily vaguer, issue of how we think and
interact in

becoming members of larger systems. With such a big jump of focus,
the

question of precision flies out the window for me.
“Semi-technical”. Please elaborate. I think a completely technical discussion
would concist of a lines of equations, interspersed with defining specifications
like, "where x is ___, " etc. In ordinary conversation I think we
use technical terms where they help increase the precision of the discussion,
but interspersed with all kinds of everyday terms for all the material
that can’t so easily be reduced to technical talk. Otherwise, we
could hardly hold most of the discussions we find on the net currently.
(Maybe that would be good thing. I’m not totally sure.)
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

That’s OK with me, but enough of this palaver about rules of discussion.
I’m waiting for what you have to contribute toward studying high order
functioning.

Within that metaphor I think some
of us, like David, Ed Ford and me, would be

more like pharmacists than either physicists or chemists (although
I think our

Testing the Self paper was on the level at least of “chemistry.”)
No, I think your (sic) 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.
OK

and others simply interested 3rd
parties. The common

thread between all of us is we are “consumers” of both “chemistry”
and

“physics” whether we like it or not. :-). This list has been very

intolerant of “chemists”, I believe, in the mistaken belief, that
you must

be 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?
What I meant was that I have not experienced the list as being particularly
intolerant of anybody (if a_ list_ can do any thing of the sort, :-), just
kidding. I know you mean the members of the list, but even so I have
seen some of the most outlandish wastes of time tolerated beyond endurence
here from time to time.
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.
This is a perennial “issue” that one or another raises, about why isn’t
PCT more widely understood/accepted. I think there are many answers,
most of which would come down to the ways that humans apportion their time
in controlling their personal priorities (read: controlling their highest
order PVs). Just as not everybody wants to be an artist, or a politician,
so I think the number of people really intersted in how behavior (or anything
else about reality) works–enough to devote large amounts of their “here
on earth” energy–is relatively small in population terms.
And having said that, I’ve got a lot of galley proofing to do, and must
politely

withdraw some of my involvement here and limit myself to dip back into
this discussion only for those items that bear upon a high priority of
mine, namely anything that might advance the study of higher order systems.

Best, Dick R

···

At 02:43 PM 5/3/2003 -0500, you wrote:

From [ Marc Abrams (2003.05.06.1621)]

Purpose: To continue the dialog with Dick and strive for some clarification and common understanding of the model

···

[From Dick Robertson,2003.05.06.1356CDT]

I believe I can certainly see the effort you are putting into your posts.

Thank you. I blew the last one to Fred, but hey, we all have bumps in the road

That isn’t quite what I meant. I meant that if I don’t already have a shared frame of reference about a term we bat back and forth then I need a concrete example to understand the kind of phenomena you are generalizing about.

What would provide a “concrete” example besides other words? Or, what kind of words or phrases would help in explaining and differentiating between the model and a more normative use of the word or phrase. I am trying unsuccessfully to think of something solid ( an object ) that I can refer to, and analogy’s don’t seem to be useful. I’m at a loss. You are right about that “shared frame of reference”. that is why it is difficult to learn PCT. We “think” we have a “shared frame” and we don’t.

What does LOL mean, BTW?

LOL is “e-mail speak” for “Laugh Out Loud”, it means a I am laughing hard. a :slight_smile: means a smile. BTW,also e-mail speak means By The Way. Ok?

I’m not sure I understand this, but I’ll make a stab at it. Based on what I gather from your earlier remarks I’m thinking that “cumulative affects (or do you mean effects?”) refers to the fact that a higher order system controls its perceptual variable by setting in motion a cascade of Reference signals to all the subsidiary systems down the line.

Exactly. Those “Reference Signals” are in fact “Error” signals from the level above.

Thus the control of the PV of interest is effectuated by accumulated result of the corrective actions of the each of the contained subsidiaries.

Yes.

If that is what you mean, I have to say for myself that in my understanding of PCT the action of subsidiary systems is subsumed in a particular higher order control effort and therefore is already implicit in any statement about the action of the higher order.

Not nececessarily. In fact as a figure of speech you can pretty much say that whatever goes up will come down, except differently. This is not easy to conceptualize. But, going up the hierarchy ( perceptions are being “built”) the perceptual signal will go “through” every level. At each level the input function performs a transformation and sends the perceptual signal on its way up and to the comparator. Are you with me so far?, as it goes up each level it is transformed and sent up the “ladder” and to the comparator. Now while this is happening ( yes, at the same exact time ) Error signals are coming back down the hierarchy from all over the place. These Error ( Reference signals ) can bypass a level going down. might even bypass more then one, Perceptual signals never miss a level going up.

Therefore, talk about “cumulated effects” (if that is what you meant) seems to me a redundancy.

No because there is no clear “goal” path from top to bottom. reference signals can and do affect many lower level variables. You can never know what kind of “effect” anything will have on everything I know this is tough. Hey, maybe I’m wrong. Anyone validate here?

However, when you say, “`perceptions’” being defined only as our sensory
impressions;" I have trouble with what is left out in that for the rest of what
I use the term, perceptions for.

Yes, many people do and the definitions of perception are generally close to the mark but,.

For example, I sometimes am conscious of
thinking a sentence I want to say to someone, then thinking, “No, that’s not
what I mean.”

Perceptions have a very ( I use the _ _ to signify importance ) specific meaning in PCT. Your normative use of the word certainly catches the flavor of the meaning but is not quite accurate. At best, your “thinking” are a “collection” of perceptions. Remember my example of the hierarchy above. Perceptions are “built” from both sensory data and memory inputs going up the hierarchy, as they are going up they are continuously coming back down as error signals this is the control process. Why do I feel like I am going to confuse you even more. I’m practically confused myself :-).

As I apply PCT I consider that a system on my Principle level
was _perceiving_an output of my Program level communication program, and
enduring/experiencing (do we have a proper technical term for this?) error.

No. You don’t “experience” “Program level” output. Consciousness does not reside in the hierarchy. It is outside of it. Think of it as a cloud that surrounds the hierarchy being able to focus a beam of light on any part and level of the hierarchy. “What” you perceive is called Awareness. Awareness is being conscious of “some” ( one or more Perceptions ) Whatever level the light is focused on you will “percieve” that level and all lower levels, so if the light is “focused” on a “principle” you would “perceive” all perceptions about that principle and the components of that principle from all the levels below.

Very difficult stuff to conceptualize. think about it.

All of this was occurring at higher levels, as I see it. I don’t see where
first order signals would be involved at all.

No. It’s all happening continuously going up and coming down. Do you understand now how “first order” signals are involved?

.

Well, I guess I stand corrected there. I too regard Orders of Perception as the more correctly technical term, but I considered my substitution of “level” for Order as harmless in that I thought anyone would regard them as synonymous in the particular context in question.

It is perfectly all right to use the term levels. I was simply trying to point out that “levels” was not defined in the glossary. That’s all.

I’m a bit lost here. Other people’s attempts to clarify the use of terms like learning in order distinguish the different ways people use them are mildly interesting, but I don’t see what this has to do with what I thought was your main goal: To contribute to the development of methodology for studying the details of how higher order systems function and possibly, could eventually be modeled?

I was pointing out the need for some clearer definitions and a lexicon for HPCT. I was not attempting to do anything with learning per se. Just rying to show the ambiguity in using the term and how it would be helpful to have it mean just one thing in the model.

That’s OK with me, but enough of this palaver about rules of discussion. I’m waiting for what you have to contribute toward studying high order functioning.

I’m with ya. First I need to define some terms and see what is and is not known from an HPCT perspective. This as you are well aware of is called “discovery”. I have in mind a number of experiments using biofeedback equipment to look at stress which I hypothosize as being equal to PCT Error. I plan on working with David Goldstein. There are other experiments I have in mind too try and start to look at the upper levels, but for the time being I will let them stew a bit. I need to know more about both what I don’t know, what is known, and what I can hope to find out. I am working on it.

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.

This is a perennial “issue” that one or another raises, about why isn’t PCT more widely understood/accepted. I think there are many answers, most of which would come down to the ways that humans apportion their time in controlling their personal priorities (read: controlling their highest order PVs). Just as not everybody wants to be an artist, or a politician, so I think the number of people really intersted in how behavior (or anything else about reality) works–enough to devote large amounts of their “here on earth” energy–is relatively small in population terms.

It’s down to 98. I agree that what you say is part of the “problem”. But not the only one. There are issues I believe we could address.

And having said that, I’ve got a lot of galley proofing to do, and must politely
withdraw some of my involvement here and limit myself to dip back into this discussion only for those items that bear upon a high priority of mine, namely anything that might advance the study of higher order systems.

You know how to give a guy a workout. I hope I have been helpful.

Marc

[From Dick Robertson,2003.05.06.0005CDT]
From [ Marc Abrams (2003.05.06.1621)] Purpose:
To continue the dialog with Dick and strive for some clarification
and common understanding of the model

···

[From
Dick Robertson,2003.05.06.1356CDT] I’m not sure I understand this, but
I’ll make a stab at it. Based on what I gather from your earlier
remarks I’m thinking that “cumulative affects (or do you mean effects?”)
refers to the fact that a higher order system controls its perceptual variable
by setting in motion a cascade of Reference signals to all the subsidiary
systems down the line.
Exactly. Those “Reference Signals” are in fact “Error”
signals from the level above.

I’m puzzled about why you said that. Did you
think I didn’t know that?

Thus
the control of the PV of interest is effectuated by accumulated result
of the corrective actions of the each of the contained subsidiaries. Yes.
If that is what you mean, I have to say for myself that in my understanding
of PCT the action of subsidiary systems is subsumed in a particular higher
order control effort and therefore is already implicit in any statement
about the action of the higher order.
Not nececessarily. In fact as a figure of speech
you can pretty much say that whatever goes up will come down, except differently.
This is not easy to conceptualize. But, going up the hierarchy ( perceptions
are being “built”) the perceptual signal will go “through” every level.
At each level the input function performs a transformation and sends the
perceptual signal on its way up and to the comparator. Are you with me
so far?

Again, I’m puzzled about why you are saying that.
Did you think I didn’t know that?

, as it goes up each level it is transformed and
sent up the “ladder” and to the comparator. Now while this is happening
( yes, at the same exact time ) Error signals are coming back down the
hierarchy from all over the place. These Error ( Reference signals ) can
bypass a level going down. might even bypass more then one,

How do you know that?

Therefore, talk about “cumulated effects” (if that is what you meant)
seems to me a redundancy.

No because there is no clear “goal” path from top
to bottom. reference signals can and do affect many lower level variables.
You can never know what kind of “effect” anything will have on everything
I know this is tough.

Well, I wouldn’t exactly call that last sentence
tough. To me it is more like incomprehensible. But, I guess
that would be tough as far as communication goes.

Hey, maybe I’m wrong. Anyone validate here?
Perceptions are “built” from both sensory data and memory
inputs going up the hierarchy, as they are going up they are continuously
coming back down as error signals this is the control process.

I must say that I wouldn’t quite say it that way.

Why do I feel like I am going to confuse you even
more.

What do you think you are confusing me about?

I’m practically confused myself :-).

As I apply PCT I consider that a system on my Principle
level

was _perceiving_an output of my Program level communication program,
and enduring/experiencing (do we have a proper technical term for this?)
error.

No. You don’t “experience” “Program level” output.

That is not the meaning I intended for the word experience
there; I meant that the control system in question was undergoing error
because of the mismatch between the intention of the higher order system
and the perception it received from the output of the subservient system(s).

Consciousness does not reside in the hierarchy.

How do you know this?

Very difficult stuff to conceptualize. think
about it.

Actually I have been, for forty six years.

All
of this was occurring at higher levels, as I see it. I don’t see
where

first order signals would be involved at all.
No. It’s all happening continuously going up and
coming down. Do you understand now how “first order” signals are involved?

Actually, no.

Well, I guess I stand corrected there. I too regard Orders of
Perception as the more correctly technical term, but I considered my substitution
of “level” for Order as harmless in that I thought anyone would regard
them as synonymous in the particular context in question.

I’m a bit lost here. Other people’s
attempts to clarify the use of terms like learning in order distinguish
the different ways people use them are mildly interesting, but I don’t
see what this has to do with what I thought was your main goal: To contribute
to the development of methodology for studying the details of how higher
order systems function and possibly, could eventually be modeled?

That’s OK with me, but enough of this palaver about rules of discussion.
I’m waiting for what you have to contribute toward studying high order
functioning. I’m with ya. First I need to define some
terms and see what is and is not known from an HPCT perspective.

Ok I’ll wait.

I have in mind a number of experiments using biofeedback
equipment to look at stress which I hypothosize as being equal to PCT Error.
I plan on working with David Goldstein. There are other experiments I have
in mind too try and start to look at the upper levels, but for the time
being I will let them stew a bit. I need to know more about both what I
don’t know, what is known, and what I can hope to find out. I am working
on it.

OK, I’ll wait.

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.
This is a perennial “issue” that one or another raises, about why isn’t
PCT more widely understood/accepted. I think there are many answers,
most of which would come down to the ways that humans apportion their time
in controlling their personal priorities (read: controlling their highest
order PVs). Just as not everybody wants to be an artist, or a politician,
so I think the number of people really intersted in how behavior (or anything
else about reality) works–enough to devote large amounts of their “here
on earth” energy–is relatively small in population terms.
It’s down to 98. I agree that what you say is part
of the “problem”.

Well, please be careful not to impute to me
the idea that there is a problem about that. I was trying to say
that I don’t necessarily see any problem there.

And having said that, I’ve got a lot of galley proofing to do,
and must politely withdraw some of my involvement here and limit myself
to dip back into this discussion only for those items that bear upon a
high priority of mine, namely anything that might advance the study of
higher order systems. And this time I’ll keep to it.

You know how to give a guy a workout. I hope I have
been helpful.

Well, you’ve certainly been something.

Best, Dick R

from [ Marc Abrams (2003.05.06.2100) ]

[From Dick Robertson,2003.05.06.0005CDT]

I'm puzzled about why you said that. Did you think I didn't know that?

For clarification, no hidden agenda. I was making a statement to see if we
had the same "understanding" about a model principle. I was not scolding
you. Sort of thinking out loud. I really don't know what you do or do not
"know", and I have no way of knowing if what you do "know" is similar to
what I "understand". The purpose of this dialogue is not about "being right"
( see my open letter to Bruce Gregory ). It's about how we each understand
the model. I am in this dialouge with you in the spirit of a better
"understanding" of the model not neccessarily agreement, although that would
be nice. :slight_smile:

Again, I'm puzzled about why you are saying that. Did you think I didn't

know that?

Apparently I was not sure. See my statement above. Are you offended? If so,
please reconsider.

I said;

, as it goes up each level it is transformed and sent up the "ladder" and

to the comparator. Now _while_ this is happening ( yes, at the same exact

time ) Error signals are coming back down the hierarchy from all over the

place. These Error ( Reference signals ) can bypass a level going down.

might even bypass more then one,

Dick asked;

How do you know that?

I don't "know" that. Bill has postulated this possibility and at this point
I cannot and would not refute him. I hope to be able to take a look at the
"hierarchy". I think Bill did one _helluva_ job with this. Absolutely
brilliant. What is your "understanding" of this?

I said;

No because there is no clear "goal" path from top to bottom. reference

signals can and do affect many lower level variables. You >>can never know
what kind of "effect" anything will have on everything I know this is tough.

Dicks Statement;

Well, I wouldn't exactly call that last sentence tough. To me it is more

like incomprehensible. But, I guess that would be tough as far as

communication goes.

What is "incomprehensible" about my statement. What don't you understand? I
said "this is tough", because I had difficulty "understanding" this. Do you
disagree with my statement? If so, please clarify your understanding of
this. What is your take on this?

Hey, maybe I'm wrong. Anyone validate here? Perceptions are "built" from
both sensory data and memory inputs going _up_ the hierarchy, as they are
going up they are continuously coming back down as error signals this is the
control process.

I must say that I wouldn't quite say it that way.

How would you say it?

Why do I feel like I am going to confuse you even more.

What do you think you are confusing me about?

I don't know if I am. I am asking, half rhetoriclly, if I am. I follow this
up with some self deprecating humor in;

I'm practically confused myself :-).

That is not the meaning I intended for the word _experience_ there; I meant

that the control system in question was undergoing error because of the

mismatch between the intention of the higher order system and the

perception it received from the output of the subservient system(s).

To me, this statement is very confusing. Let me attempt to try and explain
why. First, the reason we are having this dialouge is to get a better
understanding and clarification of how each of us views the HPCT model( at
least I am, and hope you are as well ). The HPCT model ( i.e. our
"understanding" of Awareness, Memory, composition of the hierarchy, etc. )is
largely incomplete. PCT is just fine. HPCT has many questions. Are you
talking about individual control system Error or inter system Conflict?,
with both "Error" and "Conflict" having specific model meanings. I am not
clear on this. Can you please try and clarify. _One_ "intent", as I
understand it, of a higher order system, is to reduce error by providing
reference conditions for lower level systems. How do levels compare
"intentions"? By "intentions" do you mean "goal"? Please help me clarify
this point.

Maybe some further clarification may help. When I speak of "HPCT" I am using
my Brooklyn shortcut code :-), to signify things that are currently believed
to reside, either "outside" of the HPCT model, or not well defined in it.
Memory, Emotion, composition of the hierarchy, etc.

Consciousness does not reside in the hierarchy.

How do you know this?

Again Dick, I don't "know" this. Bill has postulated this. What is
understanding of this?

>>Very difficult stuff to conceptualize. think about it.

Actually I have been, for forty six years.

Apparently very differently then the way I do. I am attempted to
"understand" your view. This, to the end of being able to "understand" the
model as you see it, to facilitate communication between us. I am in no
position to judge whether your view is, or is not, more in line with what
Bill has in mind. I like my view of the model. I am sure you like yours. I
have no problem with this. But we are not talking about the same model.

No. It's all happening continuously going up and coming down. Do you

understand now how "first order" signals are involved?

Actually, no.

Well, I guess I stand corrected there.

Dick, I am beginning, not to feel very comfortable about this exchange. The
point as I see it, is to exchange our perceived notions about the model.
What you "like", use or discard is something you and I need to decide for
ourselves. I am not trying to "correct" you. I am simply relating the model
as I understand it. By exchanging ideas on this net I hope to get a better
understanding of the model by seeing how others percieve the model. I am
beginning to get an idea of how you see it. It varies from my view. The
amount of time you have perceived this model can at times, be a hinderence,
as much as a blessing. We tend over time, to think we "know" something
really well and when faced with contradictory evidence refuse to acknowledge
it. We start to dig in our heels without sometimes being aware of this. I am
not saying you are doing this. Just something you might want to consider.

>Well, please be careful not to impute to me the idea that there is a
problem about that. I was trying to say that I don't necessarily see any
problem >there.

Yes. I do not. I understand you believe there may not be a problem.

>Well, you've certainly been something.

And what might that be?

Marc