[from Tracy B. Harms (2008-04-21 18:55 Pacific)]
In reply to the easiest-to-reply-to thing Keith
Daniels wrote (2008.04.21.1549 PDT):
1.) PCT does not address the issue of inaccurate
perception or errors in perception. Thus, someone
who doesn't believe they have a problem doesn't
have a problem in PCT. Or Someone may believe they
have a problem because they aren't perceiving
accurately.
Those situations are very straightforward, it seems to
me. PCT does not say that a problem situation could
not be accurately determined by an observer, it says
that behavior will not occur when no disruption of
perception occurs, and that behavior will occur when
perception is disrupted even if the percieved error
does not correlate with the sort of problem situation
that the system is good at correcting. At the level of
a given system where either sort of discrepency
occurs, there isn't any potential for compensating for
them. Only something like learning (which requires
higher-level knowledge structures) or sheer good
fortune can save an organism when the senses cannot be
trusted.
Tracy Harms
···
____________________________________________________________________________________
Be a better friend, newshound, and
know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ
[from Tracy B. Harms (2008-04-22 05:36 Pacific)]
Keith asked about two classes of situation that
involve inaccuracies: failure to sense what should be
sensed as error, and false positive sensation of
error, My answer (and, indeed, my interpretation of
his question) was from core PCT theory. One of
Keith's concerns about PCT, voiced in the very same
message, was that people are more complex than this.
Quite so! Indeed, *bacteria* are more complex than
this. The level at which I sketched my reply is that
of a very basic building-block. That minimalist
building-block is central to PCT, and I think much is
gained by resolving answers through attention to it,
when possible. It does not, however, model whole
organisms. (I hope this corrects any impression I
left to the contrary.)
As for what can occur within an individual to
compensate for this sort of shortcomings, I tossed out
the vague word "learning", but I'd like to make
explicit that PCT theory as to what happens in such
meta-processes is much less structured and specific
than it is in the core control-loop portion. My
understanding, per Gary Cziko (who introduced me to
PCT), is that selectionist theory applies to
larger-scale dynamics. To the extent that my earlier
reply left out that side of things it may count as
glib. I'm not sure, however, how to elaborate on
selectionism here while keeping the reply succinct --
so I won't.
Tracy
···
--- Tracy Harms <t_b_harms@YAHOO.COM> wrote:
[from Tracy B. Harms (2008-04-21 18:55 Pacific)]
In reply to the easiest-to-reply-to thing Keith
Daniels wrote (2008.04.21.1549 PDT):
>
> 1.) PCT does not address the issue of inaccurate
> perception or errors in perception. Thus, someone
> who doesn't believe they have a problem doesn't
> have a problem in PCT. Or Someone may believe
they
> have a problem because they aren't perceiving
> accurately.
Those situations are very straightforward, it seems
to
me. PCT does not say that a problem situation could
not be accurately determined by an observer, it says
that behavior will not occur when no disruption of
perception occurs, and that behavior will occur when
perception is disrupted even if the perceived error
does not correlate with the sort of problem
situation
that the system is good at correcting. At the level
of
a given system where either sort of discrepancy
occurs, there isn't any potential for compensating
for
them. Only something like learning (which requires
higher-level knowledge structures) or sheer good
fortune can save an organism when the senses cannot
be
trusted.
Tracy Harms
____________________________________________________________________________________
Be a better friend, newshound, and
know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ
[from Keith Daniels (2008-04-22 0935 PDT]
[from Tracy B. Harms (2008-04-22 05:36 Pacific)]
One of >Keith's concerns about PCT, voiced in the very same
message, was that people are more complex than this.
Quite so! Indeed, *bacteria* are more complex than
this. The level at which I sketched my reply is that
of a very basic building-block. That minimalist
building-block is central to PCT, and I think much is
gained by resolving answers through attention to it,
when possible. It does not, however, model whole
organisms. (I hope this corrects any impression I
left to the contrary.)
As for what can occur within an individual to
compensate for this sort of shortcomings, I tossed out
the vague word "learning", but I'd like to make
explicit that PCT theory as to what happens in such
meta-processes is much less structured and specific
than it is in the core control-loop portion. My
understanding, per Gary Cziko (who introduced me to
PCT), is that selectionist theory applies to
larger-scale dynamics. To the extent that my earlier
reply left out that side of things it may count as
glib. I'm not sure, however, how to elaborate on
selectionism here while keeping the reply succinct --
so I won't.
Tracy,
No concern on my part that your answer to my post re some of the
concerns/issues I was having with PCT was glib. I very much appreciated the
reply and this followup.
I think your post has quite vividly put the majority of my concerns in
perspective. You referred to the "minimailist building block" and I do
think the majority of my concerns go to the issues beyond the basic building
blocks. This can frequently put our discussion on different levels and
create misunderstandings of their own when a reply is coming from one level
and the question from another. (Perhaps this is similar to the Method of
Levels within an individual too)
It can be carried too far at times as for example, from an absolute
perspective I might say that people don't really exist as permanent objects
at all... from a oon-dual perspective they are simply temporary perceptions.
However, even if this is true from an absolute standpoint (and that's
debatable) it doesn't help when dealing with the issues these temporary
perceptions of form (people) live with in the here and now of the relative
world. As John Welwood has said, if this life is an illusion or a dream we
still need to "dream well." I need to make clear what level I'm asking
about when I state a question or present an understanding of PCT and it
would be better for now if I kept it closer to the minimalist basic building
block level as I struggle to understand it.
Thanks,
Keith
···
On Tue, 22 Apr 2008 05:39:46 -0700, Tracy Harms <t_b_harms@YAHOO.COM> wrote:
[From Bill Powers (2008.04.22.1102 MDT)]
Keith Daniels (2008-04-22 0935 PDT) --
Tracy Harms
etc.
Sure is nice to discuss ideas with civilized people.
Best,
Bill P.
[from Tracy B. Harms (2008-04-22 10:55 Pacific)]
One other thing I'd intended to correct from the
following sentence of an earlier posting.
PCT [...] says that behavior will not occur
when no disruption of perception occurs, and
that behavior will occur when perception is
disrupted even if the perceived error does not
correlate with the sort of problem situation
that the system is good at correcting.
The subtle error here is that I conflated behavior
with corrective action. It's an easy mistake, and
perhaps to a large part benign, but it is worth
periodic review lest confusion accumulate.
With an active control system, behavior occurs
*continuously.* The absence of "output" (corrective
action) during periods of negligible disruption count
as the-behavior-of-the-system just as much as periods
where the system strains to correct disruption.
So, in the sentence quoted above I wish I had written
"corrective action" instead of "behavior."
Tracy
···
____________________________________________________________________________________
Be a better friend, newshound, and
know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. Home | Yahoo Mobile
[From Mike Acree (2008.04.22.1722 PDT)]
Bill Powers (2008.04.22.1102 MDT)]--
Keith Daniels (2008-04-22 0935 PDT) --
Tracy Harms
etc.
Sure is nice to discuss ideas with civilized people.
Hear, hear. I believe I'm not alone in having been both moved by and
impressed with Keith's posts, and I was greatly dismayed to read his
message yesterday (2008.04.21.1549 PDT):
I was going to reply to a few more posts, but I think for now, I'll
make this one my last for a while since >I don't feel that this forum is
a place I can question any aspect of PCT without offending those who
have
bought in already.
But unfortunately not surprised. It was observed some years ago on the
Net that there are several participants (not including Bill P.) who
appear to take it as their task to drive newcomers away, and they are
very good at it. If that more usual outcome was averted in this case,
I'm grateful.
Mike
[From Keith Daniels (2008.04.22.1854 PDT)]
[From Mike Acree (2008.04.22.1722 PDT)]
Bill Powers (2008.04.22.1102 MDT)]--
Keith Daniels (2008-04-22 0935 PDT) --
Tracy Harms
etc.
Sure is nice to discuss ideas with civilized people.
Hear, hear. I believe I'm not alone in having been both moved by and
impressed with Keith's posts, and I was greatly dismayed to read his
message yesterday (2008.04.21.1549 PDT):
I was going to reply to a few more posts, but I think for now, I'll
make this one my last for a while since >I don't feel that this forum is
a place I can question any aspect of PCT without offending those who
have bought in already.
But unfortunately not surprised. It was observed some years ago on the
Net that there are several participants (not including Bill P.) who
appear to take it as their task to drive newcomers away, and they are
very good at it. If that more usual outcome was averted in this case,
I'm grateful.
Mike
Mike, Thanks for your kind words. As is already obvious to you, I didn't
gracefully exit as I had initially intended. The comments and sentiments
posted, including those prodding me to be more inciteful in my understanding
of PCT kept me engaged. Not to mention the posts on topics that are of
great interest to me beyond PCT proper...
Best wishes,
Keith
[From Mike Acree (2008.04.22.2053 PDT)]
Keith Daniels (2008.04.22.1854 PDT)--
The comments and sentiments
posted, including those prodding me to be more inciteful in my
understanding of PCT kept me engaged.
Well, I guess as long as it's friendly exchanges like these that are
being incited. . . :-).
Mike