In B:CP, events and sequences were not distinguished. In Chapter 11, Bill gives the example of the word “juice”, conceived to be a sequence of phonemes. Later, words were considered examples of event perceptions. An event is a fast, well-learned sequence. Temporally short, well practiced, so that it is quickly and easily produced or recognized.
To call a system concept a set is a little too abstract and featureless. Quoting Bill again:
A system concept is an attitude, an understanding, a world view. It’s a sense of orderliness and coherence that we see in a body of principles and generalizations. It lives in an individual. It not only forms out of coalescing principles, but it determines which principles belong in the system and which do not. The process is one of assimilation and accommodation, simultaneous mutual adjustment between levels.
You might call it a coherent organization of principles into a whole, or something like that.
FN: I’ve started laying out a simplified view of the HPTC levels. See the diagram below. I have a few questions.
RM: This is great Fred. Thanks. It might have been done before but not this way as far as I can recall. Nice, simple and clear. The definitions you give look great to me. I didn’t see any errors, glaring or otherwise.Â
RM: I’d like to use it the next time I give my PCT workshop. Is that OK?
BestÂ
Rick
Â
Has anyone already done this?Â
Are there formal, official definitions for each level?
Are there any glaring errors in the diagram below?
From: Bruce Nevin [mailto:bnhpct@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 24, 2015 10:53 PM To: CSG Subject: Re: HPCT Levels
[Bruce Nevin (2011.11.24.23:00 ET)]
Fred Nickols (2015.11.24.1422)
In B:CP, events and sequences were not distinguished. In Chapter 11, Bill gives the example of the word “juice”, conceived to be a sequence of phonemes. Later, words were considered examples of event perceptions. An event is a fast, well-learned sequence. Temporally short, well practiced, so that it is quickly and easily produced or recognized.
To call a system concept a set is a little too abstract and featureless. Quoting Bill again:
A system concept is an attitude, an understanding, a world view. It’s a sense of orderliness and coherence that we see in a body of principles and generalizations. It lives in an individual. It not only forms out of coalescing principles, but it determines which principles belong in the system and which do not. The process is one of assimilation and accommodation, simultaneous mutual adjustment between levels.
You might call it a coherent organization of principles into a whole, or something like that.
On Tue, Nov 24, 2015 at 2:25 PM, Fred Nickols fred@nickols.us wrote:
[Fred Nickols (2015.11.24.1422)]
I’ve started laying out a simplified view of the HPTC levels. See the diagram below. I have a few questions.
Has anyone already done this?
Are there formal, official definitions for each level?
Are there any glaring errors in the diagram below?
I’ve updated the HPTC Levels diagram. I’ve tweaked the definitions and added examples. See below. Corrections? Comments? What could I use as an example of intensity?
From: Bruce Nevin [mailto:bnhpct@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 24, 2015 10:53 PM To: CSG Subject: Re: HPCT Levels
[Bruce Nevin (2011.11.24.23:00 ET)]
Fred Nickols (2015.11.24.1422)
In B:CP, events and sequences were not distinguished. In Chapter 11, Bill gives the example of the word “juice”, conceived to be a sequence of phonemes. Later, words were considered examples of event perceptions. An event is a fast, well-learned sequence. Temporally short, well practiced, so that it is quickly and easily produced or recognized.
To call a system concept a set is a little too abstract and featureless. Quoting Bill again:
A system concept is an attitude, an understanding, a world view. It’s a sense of orderliness and coherence that we see in a body of principles and generalizations. It lives in an individual. It not only forms out of coalescing principles, but it determines which principles belong in the system and which do not. The process is one of assimilation and accommodation, simultaneous mutual adjustment between levels.
You might call it a coherent organization of principles into a whole, or something like that.
On Tue, Nov 24, 2015 at 2:25 PM, Fred Nickols fred@nickols.us wrote:
[Fred Nickols (2015.11.24.1422)]
I’ve started laying out a simplified view of the HPTC levels. See the diagram below. I have a few questions.
Has anyone already done this?
Are there formal, official definitions for each level?
Are there any glaring errors in the diagram below?
FN: How can an event, which is at a lower level than sequence consist of a sequence? I’m confused.
I didn’t say it consists of a sequence perception. It is constructed as a sequence of lower-level perceptions. The phonemes of the word juice was Bill’s example in B:CP. Later, words were for him examples of event-level perceptions. I was alluding to that history. In B:CP, Bill thought of events and sequences together in one level. Subsequently, he separated them because he thought of sequences as having category perceptions as inputs. The latch mechanism diagrammed in B:CP serves equally well for both. Assuming that is the neural mechanism, there’s nothing that limits where the brain can grow it.
On Wed, Nov 25, 2015 at 7:36 AM, Fred Nickols fred@nickols.us wrote:
[Fred Nickols (2015.11.25.0735)]
Â
How can an event, which is at a lower level than sequence consist of a sequence? I’m confused.
Â
Fred Nickols
Â
From: Bruce Nevin [mailto:bnhpct@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 24, 2015 10:53 PM To: CSG Subject: Re: HPCT Levels
Â
[Bruce Nevin (2011.11.24.23:00 ET)]
Â
Fred Nickols (2015.11.24.1422)
Â
In B:CP, events and sequences were not distinguished. In Chapter 11, Bill gives the example of the word “juice”, conceived to be a sequence of phonemes. Later, words were considered examples of event perceptions. An event is a fast, well-learned sequence. Temporally short, well practiced, so that it is quickly and easily produced or recognized.
Â
To call a system concept a set is a little too abstract and featureless. Quoting Bill again:
Â
A system concept is an attitude, an understanding, a world view. It’s a sense of orderliness and coherence that we see in a body of principles and generalizations. It lives in an individual. It not only forms out of coalescing principles, but it determines which principles belong in the system and which do not. The process is one of assimilation and accommodation, simultaneous mutual adjustment between levels.
Â
You might call it a coherent organization of principles into a whole, or something like that.
Â
Â
On Tue, Nov 24, 2015 at 2:25 PM, Fred Nickols fred@nickols.us wrote:
[Fred Nickols (2015.11.24.1422)]
Â
I’ve started laying out a simplified view of the HPTC levels. See the diagram below. I have a few questions.
Â
Has anyone already done this?
Are there formal, official definitions for each level?
Are there any glaring errors in the diagram below?
On Nov 25, 2015, at 4:13 PM, Bruce Nevin bnhpct@gmail.com wrote:
[Bruce Nevin (2015.11.25.16:12 ET)]
Fred Nickols (2015.11.25.0735) –
FN: How can an event, which is at a lower level than sequence consist of a sequence? I’m confused.
I didn’t say it consists of a sequence perception. It is constructed as a sequence of lower-level perceptions. The phonemes of the word juice was Bill’s example in B:CP. Later, words were for him examples of event-level perceptions. I was alluding to that history. In B:CP, Bill thought of events and sequences together in one level. Subsequently, he separated them because he thought of sequences as having category perceptions as inputs. The latch mechanism diagrammed in B:CP serves equally well for both. Assuming that is the neural mechanism, there’s nothing that limits where the brain can grow it.
/B
On Wed, Nov 25, 2015 at 7:36 AM, Fred Nickols fred@nickols.us wrote:
[Fred Nickols (2015.11.25.0735)]
How can an event, which is at a lower level than sequence consist of a sequence? I’m confused.
Fred Nickols
From: Bruce Nevin [mailto:bnhpct@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 24, 2015 10:53 PM To: CSG Subject: Re: HPCT Levels
[Bruce Nevin (2011.11.24.23:00 ET)]
Fred Nickols (2015.11.24.1422)
In B:CP, events and sequences were not distinguished. In Chapter 11, Bill gives the example of the word “juice”, conceived to be a sequence of phonemes. Later, words were considered examples of event perceptions. An event is a fast, well-learned sequence. Temporally short, well practiced, so that it is quickly and easily produced or recognized.
To call a system concept a set is a little too abstract and featureless. Quoting Bill again:
A system concept is an attitude, an understanding, a world view. It’s a sense of orderliness and coherence that we see in a body of principles and generalizations. It lives in an individual. It not only forms out of coalescing principles, but it determines which principles belong in the system and which do not. The process is one of assimilation and accommodation, simultaneous mutual adjustment between levels.
You might call it a coherent organization of principles into a whole, or something like that.
On Tue, Nov 24, 2015 at 2:25 PM, Fred Nickols fred@nickols.us wrote:
[Fred Nickols (2015.11.24.1422)]
I’ve started laying out a simplified view of the HPTC levels. See the diagram below. I have a few questions.
Has anyone already done this?
Are there formal, official definitions for each level?
Are there any glaring errors in the diagram below?
RM: I do have some suggested revisions that you might want to consider before you make it final.
Instead of “Spilling coffee” as the example of an event perception, how about “Taking a sip of coffee”. While “spilling coffee” is, indeed, an event perception, it’s rarely the reference state of of an event perceptual variable. So I think "Taking a sip of coffee"would be a better example of an event perception since we are talking about a hierarchy of controlled perceptions.
I think “Prepare breakfast” is a little too general for a program perception. I agree that it is a program but I think it might be better to pick a more obvious (at least to me) example of a program perception like the perception of “Following a recipe”.
“Never drink coffee after 6:00” seems like a rule (which is a program perception --a contingency – like " if its before 6:00 don’t drink coffee else do") than a principle. A principle would be something like “Avoid caffeinated beverages in the evening”. A principle is controlled by varying the rules (programs) you control in order to perceive the principle. So “Never drink coffee after 6:00” is one of the rules you would be controlling for in order to control for the principle “Avoid caffeinated beverages in the evening”; another might be “Don’t drink coke after 6:00”.
That’s it. I think “healthy diet” is OK as a system concept since system concepts are controlled by varying the principles you control for and “Avoid caffeinated beverages in the evening” could certainly be one of the principles you might be controlling for in order to maintain the system concept perception of a 'healthy diet".
In general, when you present this diagram I think it would be good to emphasize the points I’ve made here; that PCT imagines there to be a hierarchy of controlled perceptions because higher level perceptions are controlled by varying the references (goals) for the states of lower level perceptual variables. And that’s how Powers came up with the hierarchy; by thinking of what higher level aspect of his experience is controlled by varying the current level of experience. So intensity level perceptions are varied to produce different sensations (as in the case of the taste of lemonade, where the intensity of different chemical perceptions is varied to produce the taste of lemonade).
RM: I do have some suggested revisions that you might want to consider before you make it final.
Instead of “Spilling coffee” as the example of an event perception, how about “Taking a sip of coffee”. While “spilling coffee” is, indeed, an event perception, it’s rarely the reference state of of an event perceptual variable. So I think "Taking a sip of coffee"would be a better example of an event perception since we are talking about a hierarchy of controlled perceptions.
I think “Prepare breakfast” is a little too general for a program perception. I agree that it is a program but I think it might be better to pick a more obvious (at least to me) example of a program perception like the perception of “Following a recipe”.
“Never drink coffee after 6:00” seems like a rule (which is a program perception --a contingency – like " if its before 6:00 don’t drink coffee else do") than a principle. A principle would be something like “Avoid caffeinated beverages in the evening”. A principle is controlled by varying the rules (programs) you control in order to perceive the principle. So “Never drink coffee after 6:00” is one of the rules you would be controlling for in order to control for the principle “Avoid caffeinated beverages in the evening”; another might be “Don’t drink coke after 6:00”.
That’s it. I think “healthy diet” is OK as a system concept since system concepts are controlled by varying the principles you control for and “Avoid caffeinated beverages in the evening” could certainly be one of the principles you might be controlling for in order to maintain the system concept perception of a 'healthy diet".
In general, when you present this diagram I think it would be good to emphasize the points I’ve made here; that PCT imagines there to be a hierarchy of controlled perceptions because higher level perceptions are controlled by varying the references (goals) for the states of lower level perceptual variables. And that’s how Powers came up with the hierarchy; by thinking of what higher level aspect of his experience is controlled by varying the current level of experience. So intensity level perceptions are varied to produce different sensations (as in the case of the taste of lemonade, where the intensity of different chemical perceptions is varied to produce the taste of lemonade).
I think one more change – to intensity – is ne needed. One of the things I was trying to do with the coffee example is illustrate how the hierarchy might function and use a fairly consistent example from top to bottom. Clenching one’s teeth might be a good example of intensity but I don’t think it’s a good fit with the coffee example. Would “Muscle tension involved in holding coffee cup to lipsâ€? be a better fit at the intensity level?
Yes, muscle tension would qualify for control at the intensity level. So would blowing on the overly hot coffee to bring its perceived temperature down to an acceptable level.
Hmm. Presumably, pursing one’s lips prior to blowing would fit with configuration. And blowing itself would qualify for the event level. Do I have those right?
Fred Nickols
···
From: Bruce Abbott [mailto:bbabbott@frontier.com] Sent: Tuesday, December 01, 2015 10:02 AM To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu Subject: RE: HPCT Levels
[From Bruce Abbott (2015.12.01.1000 EST)]
Fred Nickols (2015.12.01.0835) –
I think one more change – to intensity – is needed. One of the things I was trying to do with the cooffee example is illustrate how the hierarchy might function and use a fairly consistent example from top to bottom. Clenching one’s teeth might be a good example of intensity but I don’t think it’s a good fit with the coffee example. Would “Muscle tension involved in holding coffee cup to lipsâ€? be a better fit at the intensity level?
Yes, muscle tension would qualify for control at the intensity level. So would blowing on the overly hot coffee to bring its perceived temperature down to an acceptable level.
I think one more change – to intensity – i“ is needed. One of the things I was trying to do with the coffee example is illustrate how the hierarchy might function and use a fairly consistent example from top to bottom. Clenching one’s teeth might be a good example of intensity but I don’t think it’s a good fit with the coffee example. Would “Muscle tension involved in holding coffee cup to lipsâ€? be a better fit at the intensity level?
Fred Nickols
···
From: Fred Nickols [mailto:fred@nickols.us] Sent: Tuesday, December 01, 2015 5:59 AM To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu Subject: RE: HPCT Levels
[Fred Nickols (2015.12.01.0558)]
Good suggestions, Rick. They’ve been incorporated. See attached.
Fred Nickols
From: Richard Marken [mailto:rsmarken@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, November 30, 2015 9:12 PM To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu Subject: Re: HPCT Levels
[From Rick Marken (2015.11.20.1810)]
Fred Nickols (2015.11.30.1211)–
FN: Warren: The diagram is complete. A PDF was attached to an earlier email. Here is the link to the one on my site:
RM: I do have some suggested revisions that you might want to consider before you make it final.
Instead of “Spilling coffee” as the example of an event perception, how about “Taking a sip of coffee”. While “spilling coffee” is, indeed, an event perception, it’s rarely the reference state of of an event perceptual variable. So I think "Taking a sip of coffee"would be a better example of an event perception since we are talking about a hierarchy of controlled perceptions.
I think “Prepare breakfast” is a little too general for a program perception. I agree that it is a program but I think it might be better to pick a more obvious (at least to me) example of a program perception like the perception of “Following a recipe”.
“Never drink coffee after 6:00” seems like a rule (which is a program perception --a contingency – like " if its before 6:00 don’t drink coffee else do") than a principle. A principle would be something like “Avoid caffeinated beverages in the evening”. A principle is controlled by varying the rules (programs) you control in order to perceive the principle. So “Never drink coffee after 6:00” is one of the rules you would be controlling for in order to control for the principle “Avoid caffeinated beverages in the evening”; another might be “Don’t drink coke after 6:00”.
That’s it. I think “healthy diet” is OK as a system concept since system concepts are controlled by varying the principles you control for and “Avoid caffeinated beverages in the evening” could certainly be one of the principles you might be controlling for in order to maintain the system concept perception of a 'healthy diet".
In general, when you present this diagram I think it would be good to emphasize the points I’ve made here; that PCT imagines there to be a hierarchy of controlled perceptions because higher level perceptions are controlled by varying the references (goals) for the states of lower level perceptual variables. And that’s how Powers came up with the hierarchy; by thinking of what higher level aspect of his experience is controlled by varying the current level of experience. So intensity level perceptions are varied to produce different sensations (as in the case of the taste of lemonade, where the intensity of different chemical perceptions is varied to produce the taste of lemonade).
I notice that some examples (far right column) look like a command (avoid caffeine in the evenings, make a recipe) and other examples don’t (in particular, the category perception: coffee, cream, sugar). Can anyone comment on this?
I’m not sure what prompted your question but I agree with your observation. I think the reason for the variation in the statements has to do with the levels being levels of perceptual control. So, “avoid caffeine in the evenings� is an example of a reference signal at the principle level. “Coffee, cream and sugar� are examples of perceptions at the Category level. I suppose a perception of “never drinking coffee in the evening� could be an example of a perception at the principle level but I’m not well-versed enough in PCT or the hierarchy to make that call.
Did you have some other questions or suggestions in mind?
Fred Nickols
···
From: PHILIP JERAIR YERANOSIAN [mailto:pyeranos@ucla.edu] Sent: Tuesday, December 01, 2015 12:17 PM To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu Subject: HPCT Levels
I notice that some examples (far right column) look like a command (avoid caffeine in the evenings, make a recipe) and other examples don’t (in particular, the category perception: coffee, cream, sugar). Can anyone comment on this?
