Learning PCT

[Marc_Abrams3]

from [ Marc Abrams (990430.1347) ]

I think it's kind of ironic that PCT stresses the importance of what our
internal goals are and here we are spending oodles of time trying to figure
out what _someone_ else is trying to control for

Maybe we should turn the search inward for some possibilities. I did some
more reflecting about what I might be controlling for with regard to "PCT
friends" and what was it that was annoying me so much about what Rick was
doing. ( this is becoming habit forming and fun ) This is what I came up
with.

Learning PCT is a long process. There is probably more to _unlearn_ then
there is to learn. Currently no one can tell you exactly how long it will
take, and what the best path might be for "getting it". Each of us _must_
come by it in our own way and time. The commonality though in being able to
get _any_ understanding is to keep an _OPEN DIALOGUE_ going with people.
People who show a curiosity and interest in PCT _must_ be _communicated_
with. That means ( at least with me ) that we must be _patient_. _ALL_ of us
have come to CSG with baggage. That baggage is not _evil_ It's who we
are. It must be unlearned. This can _only_ be done by the individual. No one
can do it for them, no one can even help them walk the last mile. It's
something that must be a personal experience.

I am not interested in "selling" PCT. I am interested in encouraging people
to look at it. I want to maintain a dialogue with people who are like wise
interested. To do this you must be willing to accept the baggage that comes
with the individual. If one perspective doesn't do it, lets explain it again
from a different one. If were really trying to do something novel we might
even take the time to try and understand _why_ a person is having a
difficult time. Sorta like an unofficial semi-rigorous "test".

I believe Rick, _at times_, ( not all the time, but enough times to make it
real annoying ) defeats this purpose. When Bruce Gregory called Rick an
"Enemy" of PCT. That is what he was talking about. Rick closes down lines of
communication by insisting that people are idiots and that no one except for
him ( and Bill, and Mary of course ) is _really_ interested in learning
PCT. How the hell would he know? :-). After getting bashed by Rick, who
sticks around. Granted, Some people really deserve it, but do we need to
throw out the baby with the bath water?

Working with people with regard to learning PCT is not easy. What seems
pretty self evident _AFTER_ you have begun to understand it is anything but.
I realize now that I have been on the net for close to 5 years and I am
_FIRST_ beginning to understand it. I thought I understood it after the
first 5 minutes and then after every 15 minutes :-). It's just one kick the
pants after another. But what a hell of a ride.

I don't know why ( not yet, but this is my next self-reflection project
) but I like sharing good things with people. I like and enjoy good
friends and good talk. I am not interested in "sharing" _my_ knowledge of
PCT as much as I would like others to experience the _learning_ of it. It's
breath taking. No, I don't believe I am being overly dramatic. It is not my
intent. But when you combine the dumped knowledge with the new insights it
gets pretty damn interesting.

Any reactions?

Marc

[Bill_Powers1]

[From Bill Powers (961017.1000 MDT)]

[from Mary Powers (961016]

Bill Benzon:

I'd like to make a modest suggestion. If you go to
http://www.ed.uiuc.edu/csg/ there is a great deal of material on
PCT that has appeared on the net over the last 6 years, including
a number of Bill's better essays on a variety of topics. There
are also numerous demos worth looking at, and ordering
information for Bill's books, Living Control Systems I and II,
which contain papers from 1959-1990.

I get the definite impression that you, having read his book 20
years ago, feel you know all you need to know about PCT, and that
many of your criticisms of it are based on that conclusion. It
might help if you brought yourself up to date. There may even be
stuff in there about loop gain ;->

The state of a dog's viscera - hunger pangs - is a perception.
Compared with the reference state, an error signal is produced.
This error signal goes to numerous control systems as reference
signals, which in turn produce error/reference signals, down
through the hierarchy to the bottom level which produces muscle
tensions by which the dog changes his perceptions of himself vis-
a-vis food until there is no error. What we see is him rattling
his dish, barking, going out and killing the neighbor's cat -
whatever it takes.

Priority is set, generally, by the size of the error. Humans,
adult ones anyway, can postpone dealing with large errors and
reorder priorities because they have a well-developed program
level which enables them to consider possible negative
consequences of attempting immediate error correcting. They can
resist dealing with large errors if they choose to honor
principles that require it (like celibacy for priests). Dogs,
whhen they have an error, want to fix it NOW. This leads humans,
who frequently deny themselves that pleasure (as above), to
admire dogs for their up-frontness and "honesty".

Mary P.

[Bill_Benzon]

Mary Powers (961016) sez:

Bill Benzon:

I get the definite impression that you, having read his book 20
years ago, feel you know all you need to know about PCT, and that
many of your criticisms of it are based on that conclusion. It
might help if you brought yourself up to date. There may even be
stuff in there about loop gain ;->

A friend of mine (Bill Doyle) has most of the later PCT books. I've looked
through them quickly and didn't feel a strong need to study them. My
judgement may have been hasty, etc., but that's the judgement I made
several months ago.

Beyond that, one of the few things I've seen posted which suggests
substantial changes of a kind which are meaningful to me is Bill's post of
last night, where he did a rethink on emotion. OTOH the fact that system
now has 11 levels, for example, is not terribly important to me. My
judgement on that may be wrong, etc. But Hays and I decided to do without
the upper levels years ago for reasons which made sense to us at the time
and which still make sense.

So there are differences, and they are not casually taken. At the moment
it seems to me that we have things to say to one another which are usefull
and which do not require either of us to make whole scale changes in our
respective systems. We don't have to agree on everything and we can
continue to disagree on quite major issues. But I do have the impression
there may be areas where we can develop some ideas which satisfy your
agenda and mine without much strain on either side and I'm looking for
those (the virtues of localized reorganization seems to me one such area).
OTOH you are working real hard to give me the impression that you are a no
compromise bunch of folks w/ little or no interest in the rest of the
intellectual world. And I find that rather sad.

Note that despite these substantial differences I have made private
overtures to both Kent & bill about publishing some of their work and, as
you may know by now, I've also made a public offer. I am not the enemy.
But if that's what you want me to become...

The state of a dog's viscera - hunger pangs - is a perception.

Yes. And hunger is itself probably learned. (The state of distention in
the stomach, I believe, has something to do with it).

This error signal goes to numerous control systems as reference
signals, which in turn produce error/reference signals, down
through the hierarchy to the bottom level which produces muscle
tensions by which the dog changes his perceptions of himself vis-
a-vis food until there is no error.

This is all too generic and vague to be of much use. I want to know which
control systems get the hunger error signal. Note, however, that if hunger
is a learned sensation, it may be misleading to think of it as error. My
sense is that adult mammals eat long before intrinsic error sets in. In
any event, you talk as though these signals, whatever they are, enter high
up in the stack. Just where? And how do they "trigger" reference signals?

Priority is set, generally, by the size of the error. Humans,
adult ones anyway, can postpone dealing with large errors and
reorder priorities because they have a well-developed program
level which enables them to consider possible negative
consequences of attempting immediate error correcting. They can
resist dealing with large errors if they choose to honor
principles that require it (like celibacy for priests). Dogs,
whhen they have an error, want to fix it NOW. This leads humans,
who frequently deny themselves that pleasure (as above), to
admire dogs for their up-frontness and "honesty".

But all this priority setting and postponement has to be done by some
mechanism. What/where is that mechanism?

···

********************************************************
William L. Benzon 518.272.4733
161 2nd Street bbenzon@global2000.net
Troy, NY 12180 http://www.newsavanna.com/wlb/
USA
********************************************************
What color would you be if you didn't know what you was?
That's what color I am.
********************************************************