Just a simple concept I need to understand

[BUSINESS_GAVIN_HERMA]

(Gavin Ritz 2011.11.23.8.38NZT)

I’m standing
looking at a natural scenery. Just looking (not moving, well maybe a little). I
move my head to take in the full scope of the scenery and possibly blink my
eyes. I then utter (don’t use my vocal cords) the silent sound of “beautiful”
in my own head.

Can someone please in the
this specific context explain to me,

•  what is the disturbances,
  

•  what is the controlled
  

  variables,
• what is the outputs.
  And a nice to diagram
  to clarify this simple picture in PCT terms.

Kind regards

Gavin

[_Erling_Jorgensen]

[From Erling Jorgensen (2011.11.22 1525EST)]

(Gavin Ritz 2011.11.23.8.38NZT)

Hi Gavin,
I like the profound simplicity of the scenario you raise.

I'm standing looking at a natural scenery. ...
Can someone please in the this specific context explain...

I can give my view of a PCT understanding of this scenario. I am not sure
there is a single PCT view. For instance, I believe Martin Taylor might
say that this is an instance of passive observation of perceptions that
are not necessarily being controlled. I think I would differ, & infer
a control process going, as I'll try to explain.

I'm standing looking at a natural scenery. Just looking (not moving, well
maybe a little).

The very fact that you have 'stopped to look' tells me that you are
controlling something. The stopping, which preceded the "standing" that
you mentioned, would have been a change from whatever you were previously
doing. A postulate of PCT is that we don't make those changes in our
behaviors unless we are controlling for something.

The fact that currently there is 'very little movement' going on tells me
that, whatever the key perceptions are for you, they are close to your
reference standards for what you want them to be. The lack of a change
in output, according to PCT, points to no need to change a perception from
the state it is currently in. The corollary of this point is there do
not seem to be pronounced disturbances currently disturbing those
perceptions.

I move my head to take in the full scope of the scenery and
possibly blink my eyes.

The 'moving your head' tells me that you are correcting some perception
that wasn't fully being matched to its reference when your head was still.
You identify a purpose that you recognize in yourself -- i.e., "to take
in..." And you list what the relevant perception seems to be, namely,
"the full scope of the scenery."

It seems that the narrower focal view did not do full justice to what you
wanted to experience. I am not sure whether this suggests that your
peripheral vision awareness of the broader scene formed a disturbance,
presumably by not being fully in focus. And so you panned your eyes
across the broader scene, bringing each part into focus & getting a sense
of the grander scene.

The 'blinking' seems to have been controlling a perception of moisture
for your eyes, which was being disturbed by what we might call dryness
in the air.

I then utter (don't use my vocal cords) the silent
sound of "beautiful" in my own head.

As a higher level perception, I find this one a little harder to specify.
The fact that you are doing some kind of 'silent utterance' counts as
behavior in my book, so I believe it is controlling some perception. I
can't tell whether it is mid-level, as in the category of "beautiful," or
perhaps higher level, as in a principle of 'beauty.'

If it is a category perception, it could be that you are placing the scene
together with other "beautiful" items in some kind of associative memory.
The essence of the category level, as I see it, is classifying items
together, even if they are arbitrary classifications. To then summon one
item of the class can call forth other associated items.

If it is a principle perception -- and I think I lean this way -- it is in
some way 'directing the show'. The principle level of the proposed HPCT
hierarchy is at a relatively high level, specifying (somehow) what
programs should be operative at the next lower level. It seems to me
that controlling for that perception of 'beauty' is what led to the whole
sequence of behaviors that you describe: the stopping, the standing, the
looking, the moving of the head, the blinking, the internal utterance.
Each of those would be implemented by what might be gating nodes at the
program level of perception & control.

In a sense, the high-level control process is 'bring forth beauty', which
is controlled for -- instead of being ignored, or dismissed -- by the
whole process that you describe.

I hope this gives one way to ponder how control is still operative in
these ordinary yet profound experiences that we have. Thanks for raising
the query.

All the best,
Erling

[BUSINESS_GAVIN_HERMA]

(Gavin Ritz 2011.11.23.10.53NZT)

[From Erling Jorgensen
(2011.11.22 1525EST)]

(Gavin Ritz 2011.11.23.8.38NZT)

Erling

Thank you but this really
hasn’t answered my specific questions.

·
What is the disturbances (list all possibilities)

·
What is the controlled variables (list all
possibilities)

·
What is the output variables. (all possibilities)

Also diagram would be
greatly appreciated, with a list what is each of those in this scenario.

I don’t want qualitative
descriptions, (statements) you are describing the process to me.

Regards

Gavin

Hi Gavin,

I like the profound simplicity of the scenario you
raise.

I’m standing looking at a natural scenery. …

Can someone please in the this specific context
explain…

I can give my view of a PCT understanding of this
scenario. I am not sure

there is a single PCT view. For instance, I
believe Martin Taylor might

say that this is an instance of passive observation of
perceptions that

are not necessarily being controlled. I think I
would differ, & infer

a control process going, as I’ll try to explain.

I’m standing looking at a natural scenery. Just
looking (not moving, well

maybe a little).

The very fact that you have ‘stopped to look’ tells me
that you are

controlling something. The stopping, which
preceded the “standing” that

you mentioned, would have been a change from whatever
you were previously

doing. A postulate of PCT is that we don’t make
those changes in our

behaviors unless we are controlling for something.

The fact that currently there is ‘very little
movement’ going on tells me

that, whatever the key perceptions are for you, they
are close to your

reference standards for what you want them to
be. The lack of a change

in output, according to PCT, points to no need to
change a perception from

the state it is currently in. The corollary of
this point is there do

not seem to be pronounced disturbances currently
disturbing those

perceptions.

I move my head to take in the full scope of the
scenery and

possibly blink my eyes.

The ‘moving your head’ tells me that you are
correcting some perception

that wasn’t fully being matched to its reference when
your head was still.

You identify a purpose that you recognize in yourself
– i.e., "to take

in…" And you list what the relevant
perception seems to be, namely,

“the full scope of the scenery.”

It seems that the narrower focal view did not do full
justice to what you

wanted to experience. I am not sure whether this
suggests that your

peripheral vision awareness of the broader scene
formed a disturbance,

presumably by not being fully in focus. And so you
panned your eyes

across the broader scene, bringing each part into
focus & getting a sense

of the grander scene.

The ‘blinking’ seems to have been controlling a
perception of moisture

for your eyes, which was being disturbed by what we
might call dryness

in the air.

I then utter (don’t use my vocal cords) the silent

sound of “beautiful” in my own head.

As a higher level perception, I find this one a little
harder to specify.

The fact that you are doing some kind of ‘silent
utterance’ counts as

behavior in my book, so I believe it is controlling
some perception. I

can’t tell whether it is mid-level, as in the category
of “beautiful,” or

perhaps higher level, as in a principle of
‘beauty.’

If it is a category perception, it could be that you
are placing the scene

together with other “beautiful” items in
some kind of associative memory.

The essence of the category level, as I see it, is
classifying items

together, even if they are arbitrary
classifications. To then summon one

item of the class can call forth other associated
items.

If it is a principle perception – and I think I lean
this way – it is in

some way ‘directing the show’. The principle
level of the proposed HPCT

hierarchy is at a relatively high level, specifying
(somehow) what

programs should be operative at the next lower
level. It seems to me

that controlling for that perception of ‘beauty’ is
what led to the whole

sequence of behaviors that you describe: the stopping,
the standing, the

looking, the moving of the head, the blinking, the
internal utterance.

Each of those would be implemented by what might be
gating nodes at the

program level of perception & control.

In a sense, the high-level control process is ‘bring
forth beauty’, which

is controlled for – instead of being ignored, or
dismissed – by the

whole process that you describe.

I hope this gives one way to ponder how control is
still operative in

these ordinary yet profound experiences that we
have. Thanks for raising

the query.

All the best,

Erling

[_Erling_Jorgensen]

[From Erling Jorgensen (2011.11.22 1800EST)]

(Gavin Ritz 2011.11.23.10.53NZT)

Thank you but this really hasn't answered my specific questions.

* What is the disturbances (list all possibilities)

* What is the controlled variables (list all possibilities)

* What is the output variables. (all possibilities)

You might get a start on those answers by pulling out relevant
items from the "qualitative descriptions" that I offered.

For instance, I listed a number of behavioral outputs (e.g.,
stopping, standing, etc.), each of which would be implemented by
its own cascade of controlled perceptions at lower levels.

I also suggested possible controlled variables, drawn from your
description, such as the "scenery," & "the full scope of the
scenery," the sensation of moisture in your eyes, & "beauty." Again,
each of these would be composed of an upward ascending column of
lower level perceptions. The specifics would have to come from
the particular scene you were viewing. And of course, we would
not know whether any specific item were being controlled, without
introducing a disturbance to see if it gets resisted by you. That
would be implementing the procedure known as the Test for the
Controlled Variable.

As to potential disturbances, I suggested a few, including noting
when disturbances did not seem to be much in play.

Any diagram would have to emerge out of the details of specific
answers you resonate with in what I wrote.

If you are going to get anywhere near "all possibilities," it will take
quite a concerted listing on your part.

All the best,
Erling

[BUSINESS_GAVIN_HERMA]

(Gavin Ritz 2011.11.23.15.04NZT)

[From Erling Jorgensen
(2011.11.22 1800EST)]

(Gavin Ritz 2011.11.23.10.53NZT)

Thank you but this really hasn’t answered my
specific questions.

What is the disturbances (list all possibilities)

What is the controlled variables (list all possibilities)

What is the output variables. (all possibilities)

Hi Erling

Okay so let’s start
with the controlled variables you mention.

·
Scenery

·
Full scope of scenery

·
Sensation of moisture in eyes

·
Beauty

Okay so your disturbances
are:

·
Poor peripheral vision

·
Dryness in air

Would you say this is it
for the two variables in this case?

I don’t understand
your disturbances here, would you say that’s it for disturbances.

What would happen if we
cut out the blinking part?

Then the disturbance variable
has only one variable that’s poor peripheral vision. Do you think this
would be the only disturbance then in this case?

What would happen if we
cut out the head movement and the person just stares straight ahead at the scenery?

Then we have no disturbance?
Right.

What happens now?

You say disturbances doesn’t
play much of a role now, how so can you please explain?

Regards

Gavin

You might get a start on those answers by pulling out
relevant

items from the “qualitative descriptions”
that I offered.

For instance, I listed a number of behavioral outputs
(e.g.,

stopping, standing, etc.), each of which would be
implemented by

its own cascade of controlled perceptions at lower
levels.

I also suggested possible controlled variables, drawn
from your

description, such as the “scenery,” &
"the full scope of the

scenery," the sensation of moisture in your eyes,
& “beauty.” Again,

each of these would be composed of an upward ascending
column of

lower level perceptions. The specifics would have to
come from

the particular scene you were viewing. And of
course, we would

not know whether any specific item were being
controlled, without

introducing a disturbance to see if it gets resisted
by you. That

would be implementing the procedure known as the Test
for the

Controlled Variable.

As to potential disturbances, I suggested a few,
including noting

when disturbances did not seem to be much in
play.

Any diagram would have to emerge out of the details of
specific

answers you resonate with in what I wrote.

If you are going to get anywhere near “all
possibilities,” it will take

quite a concerted listing on your part.

All the best,

Erling

[Bill_Powers1]

[From Bill Powers (2011.11.23.0100 MST)]

Gavin Ritz 2011.11.23.15.04NZT –

Hi
Erling
Okay so let’s start with the controlled variables you
mention.
·

Scenery
·

Full scope of
scenery
·

Sensation of
moisture in eyes
·

Beauty
Okay so your disturbances are:
·

Poor peripheral
vision
·

Dryness in
air
Would you say this is it for the two variables in this case?
Erling:

You might get a start on those answers by pulling out relevant
items from the “qualitative descriptions” that I
offered.
For instance, I listed a number of behavioral outputs (e.g.,
stopping, standing, etc.), each of which would be implemented by
its own cascade of controlled perceptions at lower levels.

BP: The levels of perception are important here: what Erling calls an
output is a controlled perception of a lower level, which is generally
stabilized against disturbances. There are also uncontrolled lower-order
perceptions, which can act unhindered as disturbances to higher-order
perceptions.

Remember that a disturbance is anything other than your own actions that
can affect a controlled perception. Say your intention is to look at a
beautiful sunset. The lower-level perception you can affect with your
muscles is “looking.” That certainly affects your perception of
the sunset – if you don’t look in the right direction, or don’t look at
all, you won’t see one. But the earth’s atmospheric phenomena and the
time of day also affect the perception of the sunset. If you look at
noon, you will not see a sunset. If there are no clouds, or too many, or
the wrong kind, you will see a less beautiful sunset than you wanted to
see. If you forgot that you’re still wearing sunglasses, you’ll see a
more vivid sunset than you had imagined seeing, and that’s a surprise –
also a disturbance. If you’re very nearsighted and forgot your regular
glasses, what you see will also be affected. If the beauty stirs you to
tears, the nice sunset will get blurry.

And don’t forget that just standing and looking is a constant fight
against gravity, uneven or shifting terrain, other people getting in the
way, blowing winds, and so on. The fact that you think you’re just
standing and looking shows how good your control systems are. All sorts
of little disturbances are always acting – Erling mentioned a few. But
they aren’t having much effect even though elementary physics says they
should be having effects. If a mild gust of wind comes by, you should
fall over, according to physics. But you don’t, because you shift a foot
to brace against it, and lean into it, and maybe put out a hand to hold
onto something, all without even noticing you’re making these little
alterations of your motor outputs. Only a few of your control systems are
in conscious awareness at a given time: if you’re attending to something
you perceive as beautiful, you may recall, falsely, that there were no
disturbances simply because they were there but didn’t succeed in
actually disturbing any perceptions enough to notice. As I have said many
times, we use the term disturbance in two ways: the wind disturbs your
balance, but your balance is not disturbed by the wind. The wind applies
a causal disturbing force to your body, but does not succeed in producing
the effect of disturbing your balance, because your control systems
automatically change their outputs to resist the forces.

Best,

Bill P.

[BUSINESS_GAVIN_HERMA]

(Gavin Ritz 2011.11.23.10.33NZT)

[From Bill Powers
(2011.11.23.0100 MST)]

Gavin Ritz 2011.11.23.15.04NZT –

Hi Erling

Okay so
let’s start with the controlled variables you mention.

·

Scenery

·

Full scope of scenery

·

Sensation of moisture in eyes

·

Beauty

Okay so
your disturbances are:

·

Poor peripheral vision

·

Dryness in air

Would
you say this is it for the two variables in this case?

Erling:

You might get a start on
those answers by pulling out relevant

items from the “qualitative
descriptions” that I offered.

For instance, I listed a
number of behavioral outputs (e.g.,

stopping, standing, etc.),
each of which would be implemented by

its own cascade of
controlled perceptions at lower levels.

BP: The levels of perception are important here: what Erling calls an output is
a controlled perception of a lower level, which is generally stabilized against
disturbances. There are also uncontrolled lower-order perceptions, which can
act unhindered as disturbances to higher-order perceptions.

Remember that a disturbance is anything other than your own actions that can
affect a controlled perception. Say your intention is to look at a beautiful
sunset. The lower-level perception you can affect with your muscles is
“looking.” That certainly affects your perception of the sunset – if
you don’t look in the right direction, or don’t look at all, you won’t see one.
But the earth’s atmospheric phenomena and the time of day also affect the
perception of the sunset. If you look at noon, you will not see a sunset. If there are no clouds, or too many, or the wrong kind, you will
see a less beautiful sunset than you wanted to see.

If you forgot that you’re
still wearing sunglasses, you’ll see a more vivid sunset than you had imagined
seeing, and that’s a surprise – also a disturbance.

I don’t want to add any extra pieces
like sunglasses and bad weather etc just my original question, I’m
looking at a scenery and I then say : in a silent sound inside my head “beautiful”.
What is the disturbances in this case. And what is the controlled variables.
Lets except for this thought experiment nothing else is going on .

If you’re very
nearsighted and forgot your regular glasses, what you see will also be
affected. If the beauty stirs you to tears, the nice sunset will get blurry.

What part of the scenery is the disturbance
then, or is the whole scenery the disturbance.

I don’t want to add any additional
statements to the scenery like nice sunset or blurry, glasses, nearsightedness
etc.

And don’t forget that just standing and looking is a constant fight against
gravity, uneven or shifting terrain, other people getting in the way, blowing
winds, and so on. The fact that you think you’re just standing and looking
shows how good your control systems are. All sorts of little disturbances are
always acting – Erling mentioned a few. But they aren’t having much effect
even though elementary physics says they should be having effects. If a mild
gust of wind comes by, you should fall over, according to physics. But you
don’t, because you shift a foot to brace against it, and lean into it, and
maybe put out a hand to hold onto something, all without even noticing you’re
making these little alterations of your motor outputs.

I just want to focus on the scenery and
not on side winds or gravity or anything like that.

Only a few of your
control systems are in conscious awareness at a given time: if
you’re attending to something you perceive as beautiful, you may recall,
falsely, that there were no disturbances simply because they were there but
didn’t succeed in actually disturbing any perceptions enough to notice. As I
have said many times, we use the term disturbance in two ways: the wind
disturbs your balance, but your balance is not disturbed by the wind. The wind
applies a causal disturbing force to your body, but does not succeed in
producing the effect of disturbing your balance, because your control systems
automatically change their outputs to resist the forces.

I would like to focus on the scenery and
my original comment. I’m looking at a scenery and I then say : in a
silent sound inside my head “beautiful”. What is the disturbances in
this case.

Regards

Gavin

Best,

Bill P.