# Learning working group

**URL:** <http://discourse.iapct.org/t/learning-working-group/6291>\
**Category:** CSG2017\
**Created:** [November 19, 2017, 8:07pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/learning-working-group/6291 "2017-11-19T20:07:21Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 9\
**Page:** 1

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![FredNickols](http://discourse.iapct.org/user_avatar/discourse.iapct.org/frednickols/32/2645_2.png) [@FredNickols](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/FredNickols)\
**Post date:** [November 19, 2017, 8:07pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/learning-working-group/6291/1 "2017-11-19T20:07:21Z")

</div>

From Fred Nickols (2017.11.19.1434 ET)

Count me in, Rupert. I’ll probably just follow although I do know a bit about human learning, mainly what works and doesn’t work more so than any particular theory.

As a matter of fact, I’m so excited by the prospect that I dashed off a few thoughts. I’m sending them along as being representative of the kind of knowledge and thinking I might be able to offer. If they’re not a good fit with what you have in mind, feel free to say so. I won’t be offended. I know quite well that my practical orientation and the theoretical orientation that dominates this list are often miles apart. So, here are my initial reactions:

First off, memory and imagination, the ability to recall information and images and the ability to envision the way things should look or work is central to learning. I show someone how to disassemble and reassemble a globe valve and, sure enough, they can do it. Some can do it right away and others need a little practice with some commentary from an observer. In PCT terms, we are at the very least talking about establishing reference conditions, goals or standards, that the trainee will strive to meet.

Second, it is often the case in training that we provide what PCTers might call a “disturbance free” environment. We train them to do the basics, free from disruptions and distractions. Later on, the same training might entail gradually adding these factors back in until the trainee can perform a task under realistic conditions.

Our empirical knowledge of how people learn is actually quite good; we can and do successfully train lots of people to do lots of things; we know how to structure their experiences so they learn, so they become capable of doing what we’re out to equip them to do. Our theoretical grasp of how people learn is quite developed but it doesn’t take into account a view of people as living control systems so it falls short on that score, whether from the cognitivists or the behaviorists.

We know also that an individual’s learning can be inhibited by the person’s view of himself. I’ve had more than one of trainees shake his or her head and say, “I can’t do that; it’s beyond me.” I’ve also been able to turn around those negative self-images and get them to believe in themselves. So one factor to consider in all this consists of the roadblocks to learning that the learners themselves erect.

In that vein, I think there is something akin to a structured and organized knowledge base present in the human mind. It is very much affected by knowledge and examples and not everything works the same with everyone. Individuals learn and they do so individually.

When training, it is important to convey or communicate the results to be achieved and the actions that will achieve them. Enter here the practice with feedback mentioned earlier. However, when people are learning on their own – figuring out what to do so to speak – that often requires no small amount of trial and error, of experimentation to see what does and doesn’t work. That, in turn, implies an adequate reference condition for the result. In some cases, the experimenting or trial and error is done simply for the sake of finding out what happens, of identifying the result associated with this or that action. Here, the learning is focused on the relationship between actions and results, between ends and means.

Another area of learning has to do with the judgments we believe others are making about us (e.g., I’m a nice guy, a pain in the neck, competent or incompetent, rude or polite, etc., etc.). Again, we are focused on the relationships between actions and outcomes or results. Enter here some social expectations or reference conditions (e.g., I don’t want to unnecessarily offend anyone, I need to tread carefully around Dick because he goes off very easily, Shirly is easy to work with and I can relax around her, etc., etc.).

So, from a PCT perspective and as a long-time student of learning and human behavior, I’m most interested in how reference conditions for results or outcomes, are established or adopted; how we come to master the actions associated with a particular outcome or set of outcomes; how the PCT hierarchy fits in with all that; and what’s different when our learning is being facilitated from when we’re doing it on our own.

Fred Nickols

> **···**
>
> **From:** Rupert Young [[mailto:rupert@perceptualrobots.com](mailto:rupert@perceptualrobots.com)]  
> **Sent:** Sunday, November 19, 2017 1:54 PM  
> **To:** csgnet@lists.illinois.edu  
> **Subject:** LWG: Learning working group
> 
> [From Rupert Young (2017.11.19 18.55)]
> 
> Regarding collaborations I think the most useful topic to pursue is learning within PCT. Although there is a general theory of how learning, by reorganisation, happens in PCT and there are some demonstrations showing it working within simulations the theory lacks detail and the demos are quite limited. There is, therefore, a lot of scope for a more comprehensive understanding of PCT learning that can be demonstrated in working models, particularly of how perceptual functions arise. The ultimate goal would be, I think, to throw an unorganised hierarchy at a control problem and it would learn a resolution. This would be a great coup in the field of AI and machine learning, as well as in the behaviour of living systems, to show the power of PCT. An initial target application could be something like the mountain car problem.
> 
> Therefore, I would like to set up a learning working group for those interested in taking part by building models, contributing expertise or just following. If anyone is interested let me know and we’ll either set up a separate email group or tag subjects on csgnet with “LWG”.
> 
> –
> 
> **Regards,  
> Rupert**

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Joh\_Orengo](http://discourse.iapct.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/j/8baadc/32.png) [@Joh\_Orengo](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/Joh_Orengo)\
**Post date:** [November 19, 2017, 10:09pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/learning-working-group/6291/2 "2017-11-19T22:09:12Z")

</div>

Hi all,

I’m new to the mailing list. I’m an independent researcher in PCT, mostly interested in how it can be applied to strategic thinking, leadership, the smoother functioning of organizations, and even video games. I’d also now like to add learning to that list.

So count me in, too, Rupert. I’ll also probably just follow mostly; although I’d like to contribute where I may.

I have 12+ years teaching English as a second language from the kindergarten level (4 to 5 year olds) to the university level, so I’ve been in the trenches. I’ve also been thinking about how reorganization relates to Max Wertheimer’s productive thinking, abductive reasoning, and how a surprising event can hinder learning and, therefore, adaptation as discussed in (military) deception studies. I’ll sketch out how I think these may relate in a later post.

Best regards,

Joh Orengo

> **···**
>
> Sent with [ProtonMail](https://protonmail.com) Secure Email.
> 
> > -------- Original Message --------
> 
> > Subject: RE: Learning working group
> 
> > Local Time: November 19, 2017 10:07 PM
> 
> > UTC Time: November 19, 2017 8:07 PM
> 
> > From: [fred@nickols.us](mailto:fred@nickols.us)
> 
> > To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
> 
> > 
> 
> > From Fred Nickols (2017.11.19.1434 ET)
> 
> > 
> 
> > Count me in, Rupert. I’ll probably just follow although I do know a bit about human learning, mainly what works and doesn’t work more so than any particular theory.
> 
> > 
> 
> > As a matter of fact, I’m so excited by the prospect that I dashed off a few thoughts. I’m sending them along as being representative of the kind of knowledge and thinking I might be able to offer. If they’re not a good fit with what you have in mind, feel free to say so. I won’t be offended. I know quite well that my practical orientation and the theoretical orientation that dominates this list are often miles apart. So, here are my initial reactions:
> 
> > 
> 
> > First off, memory and imagination, the ability to recall information and images and the ability to envision the way things should look or work is central to learning. I show someone how to disassemble and reassemble a globe valve and, sure enough, they can do it. Some can do it right away and others need a little practice with some commentary from an observer. In PCT terms, we are at the very least talking about establishing reference conditions, goals or standards, that the trainee will strive to meet.
> 
> > 
> 
> > Second, it is often the case in training that we provide what PCTers might call a “disturbance free� environment. We train them to do the basics, free from disruptions and distractions. Later on, the same training might entail gradually adding these factors back in until the trainee can perform a task under realistic conditions.
> 
> > Our empirical knowledge of how people learn is actually quite good; we can and do successfully train lots of people to do lots of things; we know how to structure their experiences so they learn, so they become capable of doing what we’re out to equip them to do. Our theoretical grasp of how people learn is quite developed but it doesn’t take into account a view of people as living control systems so it falls short on that score, whether from the cognitivists or the behaviorists.
> 
> > We know also that an individual’s learning can be inhibited by the person’s view of himself. I’ve had more than one of trainees shake his or her head and say, “I can’t do that; it’s beyond me.� I’ve also been able to turn around those negative self-images and get them to believe in themselves. So one factor to consider in all this consists of the roadblocks to learning that the learners themselves erect.
> 
> > 
> 
> > In that vein, I think there is something akin to a structured and organized knowledge base present in the human mind. It is very much affected by knowledge and examples and not everything works the same with everyone. Individuals learn and they do so individually.
> 
> > 
> 
> > When training, it is important to convey or communicate the results to be achieved and the actions that will achieve them. Enter here the practice with feedback mentioned earlier. However, when people are learning on their own – figuring out what to do so to speak – thaat often requires no small amount of trial and error, of experimentation to see what does and doesn’t work. That, in turn, implies an adequate reference condition for the result. In some cases, the experimenting or trial and error is done simply for the sake of finding out what happens, of identifying the result associated with this or that action. Here, the learning is focused on the relationship between actions and results, between ends and means.
> 
> > 
> 
> > Another area of learning has to do with the judgments we believe others are making about us (e.g., I’m a nice guy, a pain in the neck, competent or incompetent, rude or polite, etc., etc.). Again, we are focused on the relationships between actions and outcomes or results. Enter here some social expectations or reference conditions (e.g., I don’t want to unnecessarily offend anyone, I need to tread carefully around Dick because he goes off very easily, Shirly is easy to work with and I can relax around her, etc., etc.).
> 
> > 
> 
> > So, from a PCT perspective and as a long-time student of learning and human behavior, I’m most interested in how reference conditions for results or outcomes, are established or adopted; how we come to master the actions associated with a particular outcome or set of outcomes; how the PCT hierarchy fits in with all that; and what’s different when our learning is being facilitated from when we’re doing it on our own.
> 
> > 
> 
> > 
> 
> > Fred Nickols
> 
> > 
> 
> > **From:** Rupert Young [[mailto:rupert@perceptualrobots.com](mailto:rupert@perceptualrobots.com)]  
> > **Sent:** Sunday, November 19, 2017 1:54 PM  
> > **To:** csgnet@lists.illinois.edu  
> > **Subject:** LWG: Learning working group
> 
> > 
> 
> > [From Rupert Young (2017.11.19 18.55)]
> 
> > Regarding collaborations I think the most useful topic to pursue is learning within PCT. Although there is a general theory of how learning, by reorganisation, happens in PCT and there are some demonstrations showing it working within simulations the theory lacks detail and the demos are quite limited. There is, therefore, a lot of scope for a more comprehensive understanding of PCT learning that can be demonstrated in working models, particularly of how perceptual functions arise. The ultimate goal would be, I think, to throw an unorganised hierarchy at a control problem and it would learn a resolution. This would be a great coup in the field of AI and machine learning, as well as in the behaviour of living systems, to show the power of PCT. An initial target application could be something like the mountain car problem.
> 
> > Therefore, I would like to set up a learning working group for those interested in taking part by building models, contributing expertise or just following. If anyone is interested let me know and we’ll either set up a separate email group or tag subjects on csgnet with “LWG”.
> 
> > –
> 
> > **Regards,  
> > Rupert**
> 
> >

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![EetuP](http://discourse.iapct.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/e/df705f/32.png) [@EetuP](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/EetuP)\
**Post date:** [November 20, 2017, 7:36am UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/learning-working-group/6291/3 "2017-11-20T07:36:22Z")

</div>

[Eetu Pikkarainen 2017-11-20 9:34]

Rupert,

Count me in, too – at least as a follower. I am an educationalist and, thus, certainly interested in learning, all learning.

> **···**
>
> Eetu Pikkarainen
> 
> PhD (Ed.), (Title of) Adjunct Prof., University Lecturer (in Education)
> 
> Faculty of Education, University of Oulu, Finland
> 
> Research Group: [https://wiki.oulu.fi/display/theored](https://wiki.oulu.fi/display/theored)
> 
> Schools in Transition: Linking Past, Present, and Future in Educational Practice
> 
> Edited by Pauli Siljander, Kimmo Kontio and Eetu Pikkarainen
> 
> [https://www.sensepublishers.com/catalogs/bookseries/other-books/schools-in-transition/](https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.sensepublishers.com_catalogs_bookseries_other-2Dbooks_schools-2Din-2Dtransition_&d=DwMGaQ&c=8hUWFZcy2Z-Za5rBPlktOQ&r=-dJBNItYEMOLt6aj_KjGi2LMO_Q8QB-ZzxIZIF8DGyQ&m=0nhfyP3k5-Wr6mhZrUnj5mPm1NDoqG-YillmP7AEVms&s=0r7kgNNHJhKIUPUNRy_M4-6gMGtyCTrV7vOjwub4cW4&e=)
> 
> **From:** Rupert Young [[mailto:rupert@perceptualrobots.com](mailto:rupert@perceptualrobots.com)]  
> **Sent:** Sunday, November 19, 2017 8:54 PM  
> **To:** csgnet@lists.illinois.edu  
> **Subject:** LWG: Learning working group
> 
> [From Rupert Young (2017.11.19 18.55)]
> 
> Regarding collaborations I think the most useful topic to pursue is learning within PCT. Although there is a general theory of how learning, by reorganisation, happens in PCT and there are some demonstrations showing it working within simulations the theory  
> lacks detail and the demos are quite limited. There is, therefore, a lot of scope for a more comprehensive understanding of PCT learning that can be demonstrated in working models, particularly of how perceptual functions arise. The ultimate goal would be,  
> I think, to throw an unorganised hierarchy at a control problem and it would learn a resolution. This would be a great coup in the field of AI and machine learning, as well as in the behaviour of living systems, to show the power of PCT. An initial target  
> application could be something like the mountain car problem.
> 
> Therefore, I would like to set up a learning working group for those interested in taking part by building models, contributing expertise or just following. If anyone is interested let me know and we’ll either set up a separate email group or tag subjects  
> on csgnet with “LWG”.
> 
> –
> 
> **Regards,  
> Rupert**

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![rupert](http://discourse.iapct.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/r/f14d63/32.png) [@rupert](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/rupert)\
**Post date:** [November 20, 2017, 9:37am UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/learning-working-group/6291/4 "2017-11-20T09:37:39Z")

</div>

[From Rupert Young (2017.11.20 09.35)]

```
  Great Fred. Things will probably be quite low-level and

```

technical, to start with anyway, but I’m sure your insight and  
experience will be useful in terms of where we want to get to in  
the long run.

Rupert

> **···**
>
> On 19/11/2017 20:07, Fred Nickols  
> wrote:
> 
> > ```
> > From Fred
> > 
> > ```
> > 
> > Nickols (2017.11.19.1434 ET)
> 
> > ```
> > Count me in,
> > 
> > ```
> > 
> > Rupert. I’ll probably just follow although I do know a bit  
> > about human learning, mainly what works and doesn’t work  
> > more so than any particular theory.
> 
> > ```
> > As a matter
> > 
> > ```
> > 
> > of fact, I’m so excited by the prospect that I dashed off a  
> > few thoughts. I’m sending them along as being  
> > representative of the kind of knowledge and thinking I might  
> > be able to offer. If they’re not a good fit with what you  
> > have in mind, feel free to say so. I won’t be offended. I  
> > know quite well that my practical orientation and the  
> > theoretical orientation that dominates this list are often  
> > miles apart. So, here are my initial reactions:
> 
> > ```
> > First off, memory and imagination, the
> > 
> > ```
> > 
> > ability to recall information and images and the ability to  
> > envision the way things should look or work is central to  
> > learning. I show someone how to disassemble and reassemble a  
> > globe valve and, sure enough, they can do it. Some can do it  
> > right away and others need a little practice with some  
> > commentary from an observer. In PCT terms, we are at the very  
> > least talking about establishing reference conditions, goals  
> > or standards, that the trainee will strive to meet.
> 
> > ```
> > Second, it is often the case in training
> > 
> > ```
> > 
> > that we provide what PCTers might call a “disturbance free”  
> > environment. We train them to do the basics, free from  
> > disruptions and distractions. Later on, the same training  
> > might entail gradually adding these factors back in until the  
> > trainee can perform a task under realistic conditions.
> 
> > ```
> > Our empirical knowledge of how people learn
> > 
> > ```
> > 
> > is actually quite good; we can and do successfully train lots  
> > of people to do lots of things; we know how to structure their  
> > experiences so they learn, so they become capable of doing  
> > what we’re out to equip them to do. Our theoretical grasp of  
> > how people learn is quite developed but it doesn’t take into  
> > account a view of people as living control systems so it falls  
> > short on that score, whether from the cognitivists or the  
> > behaviorists.
> 
> > ```
> > We know also that an individual’s learning
> > 
> > ```
> > 
> > can be inhibited by the person’s view of himself. I’ve had  
> > more than one of trainees shake his or her head and say, “I  
> > can’t do that; it’s beyond me.” I’ve also been able to turn  
> > around those negative self-images and get them to believe in  
> > themselves. So one factor to consider in all this consists of  
> > the roadblocks to learning that the learners themselves erect.
> 
> > ```
> > In that vein, I think there is something
> > 
> > ```
> > 
> > akin to a structured and organized knowledge base present in  
> > the human mind. It is very much affected by knowledge and  
> > examples and not everything works the same with everyone.  
> > Individuals learn and they do so individually.
> 
> > ```
> > When training, it is important to convey or
> > 
> > ```
> > 
> > communicate the results to be achieved and the actions that  
> > will achieve them. Enter here the practice with feedback  
> > mentioned earlier. However, when people are learning on their  
> > own – figuring out what to do so to speak – that often  
> > requires no small amount of trial and error, of  
> > experimentation to see what does and doesn’t work. That, in  
> > turn, implies an adequate reference condition for the result.  
> > In some cases, the experimenting or trial and error is done  
> > simply for the sake of finding out what happens, of  
> > identifying the result associated with this or that action.  
> > Here, the learning is focused on the relationship between  
> > actions and results, between ends and means.
> 
> > ```
> > Another area of learning has to do with the
> > 
> > ```
> > 
> > judgments we believe others are making about us (e.g., I’m a  
> > nice guy, a pain in the neck, competent or incompetent, rude  
> > or polite, etc., etc.). Again, we are focused on the  
> > relationships between actions and outcomes or results. Enter  
> > here some social expectations or reference conditions (e.g., I  
> > don’t want to unnecessarily offend anyone, I need to tread  
> > carefully around Dick because he goes off very easily, Shirly  
> > is easy to work with and I can relax around her, etc., etc.).
> 
> > ```
> > So, from a PCT perspective and as a
> > 
> > ```
> > 
> > long-time student of learning and human behavior, I’m most  
> > interested in how reference conditions for results or  
> > outcomes, are established or adopted; how we come to master  
> > the actions associated with a particular outcome or set of  
> > outcomes; how the PCT hierarchy fits in with all that; and  
> > what’s different when our learning is being facilitated from  
> > when we’re doing it on our own.
> 
> > Fred Nickols
> 
> > **From:** Rupert Young  
> > Sunday, November 19, 2017 1:54 PM  
> > LWG: Learning working group
> 
> > [From Rupert Young (2017.11.19 18.55)]
> 
> > ```
> > Regarding collaborations I think the most useful topic to
> > 
> > ```
> > 
> > pursue is learning within PCT. Although there is a general  
> > theory of how learning, by reorganisation, happens in PCT and  
> > there are some demonstrations showing it working within  
> > simulations the theory lacks detail and the demos are quite  
> > limited. There is, therefore, a lot of scope for a more  
> > comprehensive understanding of PCT learning that can be  
> > demonstrated in working models, particularly of how perceptual  
> > functions arise. The ultimate goal would be, I think, to throw  
> > an unorganised hierarchy at a control problem and it would  
> > learn a resolution. This would be a great coup in the field of  
> > AI and machine learning, as well as in the behaviour of living  
> > systems, to show the power of PCT. An initial target  
> > application could be something like the mountain car problem.
> 
> > ```
> > Therefore, I would like to set up a learning working group
> > 
> > ```
> > 
> > for those interested in taking part by building models,  
> > contributing expertise or just following. If anyone is  
> > interested let me know and we’ll either set up a separate  
> > email group or tag subjects on csgnet with “LWG”.
> 
> > –
> 
> > **Regards,  
> > Rupert**
> 
> [mailto:rupert@perceptualrobots.com](mailto:rupert@perceptualrobots.com)  
> **Sent:**  
> \*\*To:\*\*csgnet@lists.illinois.edu  
> **Subject:**

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![rupert](http://discourse.iapct.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/r/f14d63/32.png) [@rupert](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/rupert)\
**Post date:** [November 20, 2017, 9:47am UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/learning-working-group/6291/5 "2017-11-20T09:47:36Z")

</div>

[From Rupert Young (2017.11.20 9.45)]

```
  Hi Joh, welcome to the list, and to the learning group. I'm not

```

familiar with Wertheimer’s work, though others may be, so feel  
free to give a brief overview if you like.

Rupert

> **···**
>
> On 19/11/2017 22:09, Joh Orengo wrote:
> 
> > Hi all,
> 
> > 
> 
> > ```
> > I'm new to the mailing list. I'm an independent researcher in
> > 
> > ```
> > 
> > PCT, mostly interested in how it can be applied to strategic  
> > thinking, leadership, the smoother functioning of organizations,  
> > and even video games. I’d also now like to add learning to that  
> > list.
> 
> > 
> 
> > ```
> > So count me in, too, Rupert. I'll also probably just follow
> > 
> > ```
> > 
> > mostly; although I’d like to contribute where I may.
> 
> > 
> 
> > ```
> > I have 12+ years teaching English as a second language from
> > 
> > ```
> > 
> > the kindergarten level (4 to 5 year olds) to the university  
> > level, so I’ve been in the trenches. I’ve also been thinking  
> > about how reorganization relates to Max Wertheimer’s productive  
> > thinking, abductive reasoning, and how a surprising event can  
> > hinder learning and, therefore, adaptation as discussed in  
> > (military) deception studies. I’ll sketch out how I think these  
> > may relate in a later post.
> 
> > 
> 
> > Best regards,
> 
> > Joh Orengo
> 
> > 
> 
> > 
> 
> > Sent with [ProtonMail](https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__protonmail.com&d=DwMDaQ&c=8hUWFZcy2Z-Za5rBPlktOQ&r=-dJBNItYEMOLt6aj_KjGi2LMO_Q8QB-ZzxIZIF8DGyQ&m=mgwGELR2d3Vw72KBNJbKK8C5BHZP_lttgu3aT2oP4Sc&s=Njg_UTy-8MTx33Lq4R4wg8M-HTc_Zgpo7MP7ic0KFzk&e=)  
> > Secure Email.
> 
> > 
> 
> > > -------- Original Message --------
> 
> > > Subject: RE: Learning working group
> 
> > > Local Time: November 19, 2017 10:07 PM
> 
> > > UTC Time: November 19, 2017 8:07 PM
> 
> > > From:
> 
> > > To:
> 
> > >
> 
> > > ```
> > > From Fred Nickols
> > > 
> > > ```
> > > 
> > > (2017.11.19.1434 ET)
> 
> > > Â
> 
> > > ```
> > > Count me in, Rupert. I’ll
> > > 
> > > ```
> > > 
> > > probably just follow although I do know a bit about human  
> > > learning, mainly what works and doesn’t work more so than  
> > > any particular theory.
> 
> > > Â
> 
> > > ```
> > > As a matter of fact, I’m so
> > > 
> > > ```
> > > 
> > > excited by the prospect that I dashed off a few thoughts.  
> > > I’m sending them along as being representative of the kind  
> > > of knowledge and thinking I might be able to offer. If  
> > > they’re not a good fit with what you have in mind, feel  
> > > free to say so. I won’t be offended. I know quite well  
> > > that my practical orientation and the theoretical  
> > > orientation that dominates this list are often miles  
> > > apart. So, here are my initial reactions:
> 
> > > Â
> 
> > > ```
> > > First off, memory and imagination, the
> > > 
> > > ```
> > > 
> > > ability to recall information and images and the ability to  
> > > envision the way things should look or work is central to  
> > > learning. I show someone how to disassemble and reassemble  
> > > a globe valve and, sure enough, they can do it. Some can do  
> > > it right away and others need a little practice with some  
> > > commentary from an observer. In PCT terms, we are at the  
> > > very least talking about establishing reference conditions,  
> > > goals or standards, that the trainee will strive to meet.
> 
> > > Â
> 
> > > ```
> > > Second, it is often the case in training
> > > 
> > > ```
> > > 
> > > that we provide what PCTers might call a “disturbance free�  
> > > environment. We train them to do the basics, free from  
> > > disruptions and distractions. Later on, the same training  
> > > might entail gradually adding these factors back in until  
> > > the trainee can perform a task under realistic conditions.
> 
> > > ```
> > > Our empirical knowledge of how people
> > > 
> > > ```
> > > 
> > > learn is actually quite good; we can and do successfully  
> > > train lots of people to do lots of things; we know how to  
> > > structure their experiences so they learn, so they become  
> > > capable of doing what we’re out to equip them to do. Our  
> > > theoretical grasp of how people learn is quite developed but  
> > > it doesn’t take into account a view of people as living  
> > > control systems so it falls short on that score, whether  
> > > from the cognitivists or the behaviorists.
> 
> > > ```
> > > We know also that an individual’s
> > > 
> > > ```
> > > 
> > > learning can be inhibited by the person’s view of himself.  
> > > I’ve had more than one of trainees shake his or her head and  
> > > say, “I can’t do that; it’s beyond me.� I’ve also been able  
> > > to turn around those negative self-images and get them to  
> > > believe in themselves. So one factor to consider in all  
> > > this consists of the roadblocks to learning that the  
> > > learners themselves erect.
> 
> > > Â
> 
> > > ```
> > > In that vein, I think there is something
> > > 
> > > ```
> > > 
> > > akin to a structured and organized knowledge base present in  
> > > the human mind. It is very much affected by knowledge and  
> > > examples and not everything works the same with everyone.  
> > > Individuals learn and they do so individually.
> 
> > > Â
> 
> > > ```
> > > When training, it is important to convey
> > > 
> > > ```
> > > 
> > > or communicate the results to be achieved and the actions  
> > > that will achieve them. Enter here the practice with  
> > > feedback mentioned earlier. However, when people are  
> > > learning on their own – figuring out what to do so to sspeak  
> > > – that often requires no small amount of trial and erroor, of  
> > > experimentation to see what does and doesn’t work. That, in  
> > > turn, implies an adequate reference condition for the  
> > > result. In some cases, the experimenting or trial and error  
> > > is done simply for the sake of finding out what happens, of  
> > > identifying the result associated with this or that action.  
> > > Here, the learning is focused on the relationship between  
> > > actions and results, between ends and means.
> 
> > > Â
> 
> > > ```
> > > Another area of learning has to do with
> > > 
> > > ```
> > > 
> > > the judgments we believe others are making about us (e.g.,  
> > > I’m a nice guy, a pain in the neck, competent or  
> > > incompetent, rude or polite, etc., etc.). Again, we are  
> > > focused on the relationships between actions and outcomes or  
> > > results. Enter here some social expectations or reference  
> > > conditions (e.g., I don’t want to unnecessarily offend  
> > > anyone, I need to tread carefully around Dick because he  
> > > goes off very easily, Shirly is easy to work with and I can  
> > > relax around her, etc., etc.).
> 
> > > Â
> 
> > > ```
> > > So, from a PCT perspective and as a
> > > 
> > > ```
> > > 
> > > long-time student of learning and human behavior, I’m most  
> > > interested in how reference conditions for results or  
> > > outcomes, are established or adopted; how we come to master  
> > > the actions associated with a particular outcome or set of  
> > > outcomes; how the PCT hierarchy fits in with all that; and  
> > > what’s different when our learning is being facilitated from  
> > > when we’re doing it on our own.
> 
> > > Â
> 
> > > Â
> 
> > > Fred Nickols
> 
> > > Â
> 
> > > **From:** Rupert Young  
> > > Sunday, November 19, 2017 1:54 PM  
> > > LWG: Learning working group
> 
> > > Â
> 
> > > [From Rupert Young (2017.11.19 18.55)]
> 
> > > ```
> > > Regarding collaborations I think the most useful topic to
> > > 
> > > ```
> > > 
> > > pursue is learning within PCT. Although there is a general  
> > > theory of how learning, by reorganisation, happens in PCT  
> > > and there are some demonstrations showing it working within  
> > > simulations the theory lacks detail and the demos are quite  
> > > limited. There is, therefore, a lot of scope for a more  
> > > comprehensive understanding of PCT learning that can be  
> > > demonstrated in working models, particularly of how  
> > > perceptual functions arise. The ultimate goal would be, I  
> > > think, to throw an unorganised hierarchy at a control  
> > > problem and it would learn a resolution. This would be a  
> > > great coup in the field of AI and machine learning, as well  
> > > as in the behaviour of living systems, to show the power of  
> > > PCT. An initial target application could be something like  
> > > the mountain car problem.
> 
> > > ```
> > > Therefore, I would like to set up a learning working group
> > > 
> > > ```
> > > 
> > > for those interested in taking part by building models,  
> > > contributing expertise or just following. If anyone is  
> > > interested let me know and we’ll either set up a separate  
> > > email group or tag subjects on csgnet with “LWG”.
> 
> > > –
> 
> > > **Regards,  
> > > Rupert**
> 
> > > Â
> 
> > 
> 
> [fred@nickols.us](mailto:fred@nickols.us)  
> csgnet@lists.illinois.edu  
> [mailto:rupert@perceptualrobots.com](mailto:rupert@perceptualrobots.com)  
> **Sent:**  
> \*\*To:\*\*csgnet@lists.illinois.edu  
> **Subject:**

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![JohnK](http://discourse.iapct.org/user_avatar/discourse.iapct.org/johnk/32/3043_2.png) [@JohnK](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/JohnK)\
**Post date:** [November 20, 2017, 9:56am UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/learning-working-group/6291/6 "2017-11-20T09:56:24Z")

</div>

[JK 2017.11.20 2255 NZT]

Please include me as well.

Cheers

> **···**
>
> On Mon, Nov 20, 2017 at 10:47 PM, Rupert Young [rupert@perceptualrobots.com](mailto:rupert@perceptualrobots.com) wrote:
> 
> > [From Rupert Young (2017.11.20 9.45)]
> 
> > ```
> > Hi Joh, welcome to the list, and to the learning group. I'm not
> > 
> > ```
> > 
> > familiar with Wertheimer’s work, though others may be, so feel  
> > free to give a brief overview if you like.
> 
> > Rupert
> 
> > On 19/11/2017 22:09, Joh Orengo wrote:
> 
> > > Hi all,
> 
> > >
> 
> > > ```
> > > I'm new to the mailing list. I'm an independent researcher in
> > > 
> > > ```
> > > 
> > > PCT, mostly interested in how it can be applied to strategic  
> > > thinking, leadership, the smoother functioning of organizations,  
> > > and even video games. I’d also now like to add learning to that  
> > > list.
> 
> > >
> 
> > > ```
> > > So count me in, too, Rupert. I'll also probably just follow
> > > 
> > > ```
> > > 
> > > mostly; although I’d like to contribute where I may.
> 
> > >
> 
> > > ```
> > > I have 12+ years teaching English as a second language from
> > > 
> > > ```
> > > 
> > > the kindergarten level (4 to 5 year olds) to the university  
> > > level, so I’ve been in the trenches. I’ve also been thinking  
> > > about how reorganization relates to Max Wertheimer’s productive  
> > > thinking, abductive reasoning, and how a surprising event can  
> > > hinder learning and, therefore, adaptation as discussed in  
> > > (military) deception studies. I’ll sketch out how I think these  
> > > may relate in a later post.
> 
> > >
> 
> > > Best regards,
> 
> > > Joh Orengo
> 
> > >
> 
> > >
> 
> > > Sent with [ProtonMail](https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__protonmail.com&d=DwMDaQ&c=8hUWFZcy2Z-Za5rBPlktOQ&r=-dJBNItYEMOLt6aj_KjGi2LMO_Q8QB-ZzxIZIF8DGyQ&m=mgwGELR2d3Vw72KBNJbKK8C5BHZP_lttgu3aT2oP4Sc&s=Njg_UTy-8MTx33Lq4R4wg8M-HTc_Zgpo7MP7ic0KFzk&e=)  
> > > Secure Email.
> 
> > >
> 
> > > > -------- Original Message --------
> 
> > > > Subject: RE: Learning working group
> 
> > > > Local Time: November 19, 2017 10:07 PM
> 
> > > > UTC Time: November 19, 2017 8:07 PM
> 
> > > > From: [fred@nickols.us](mailto:fred@nickols.us)
> 
> > > > To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
> 
> > > >
> 
> > > > ```
> > > > From Fred Nickols
> > > > 
> > > > ```
> > > > 
> > > > (2017.11.19.1434 ET)
> 
> > > > Â
> 
> > > > ```
> > > > Count me in, Rupert. I’ll
> > > > 
> > > > ```
> > > > 
> > > > probably just follow although I do know a bit about human  
> > > > learning, mainly what works and doesn’t work more so than  
> > > > any particular theory.
> 
> > > > Â
> 
> > > > ```
> > > > As a matter of fact, I’m so
> > > > 
> > > > ```
> > > > 
> > > > excited by the prospect that I dashed off a few thoughts.  
> > > > I’m sending them along as being representative of the kind  
> > > > of knowledge and thinking I might be able to offer. If  
> > > > they’re not a good fit with what you have in mind, feel  
> > > > free to say so. I won’t be offended. I know quite well  
> > > > that my practical orientation and the theoretical  
> > > > orientation that dominates this list are often miles  
> > > > apart. So, here are my initial reactions:
> 
> > > > Â
> 
> > > > ```
> > > > First off, memory and imagination, the
> > > > 
> > > > ```
> > > > 
> > > > ability to recall information and images and the ability to  
> > > > envision the way things should look or work is central to  
> > > > learning. I show someone how to disassemble and reassemble  
> > > > a globe valve and, sure enough, they can do it. Some can do  
> > > > it right away and others need a little practice with some  
> > > > commentary from an observer. In PCT terms, we are at the  
> > > > very least talking about establishing reference conditions,  
> > > > goals or standards, that the trainee will strive to meet.
> 
> > > > Â
> 
> > > > ```
> > > > Second, it is often the case in training
> > > > 
> > > > ```
> > > > 
> > > > that we provide what PCTers might call a “disturbance free�  
> > > > environment. We train them to do the basics, free from  
> > > > disruptions and distractions. Later on, the same training  
> > > > might entail gradually adding these factors back in until  
> > > > the trainee can perform a task under realistic conditions.
> 
> > > > ```
> > > > Our empirical knowledge of how people
> > > > 
> > > > ```
> > > > 
> > > > learn is actually quite good; we can and do successfully  
> > > > train lots of people to do lots of things; we know how to  
> > > > structure their experiences so they learn, so they become  
> > > > capable of doing what we’re out to equip them to do. Our  
> > > > theoretical grasp of how people learn is quite developed but  
> > > > it doesn’t take into account a view of people as living  
> > > > control systems so it falls short on that score, whether  
> > > > from the cognitivists or the behaviorists.
> 
> > > > ```
> > > > We know also that an individual’s
> > > > 
> > > > ```
> > > > 
> > > > learning can be inhibited by the person’s view of himself.  
> > > > I’ve had more than one of trainees shake his or her head and  
> > > > say, “I can’t do that; it’s beyond me.� I’ve also been able  
> > > > to turn around those negative self-images and get them to  
> > > > believe in themselves. So one factor to consider in all  
> > > > this consists of the roadblocks to learning that the  
> > > > learners themselves erect.
> 
> > > > Â
> 
> > > > ```
> > > > In that vein, I think there is something
> > > > 
> > > > ```
> > > > 
> > > > akin to a structured and organized knowledge base present in  
> > > > the human mind. It is very much affected by knowledge and  
> > > > examples and not everything works the same with everyone.  
> > > > Individuals learn and they do so individually.
> 
> > > > Â
> 
> > > > ```
> > > > When training, it is important to convey
> > > > 
> > > > ```
> > > > 
> > > > or communicate the results to be achieved and the actions  
> > > > that will achieve them. Enter here the practice with  
> > > > feedback mentioned earlier. However, when people are  
> > > > learning on their own – figuring out what to do so to sspeak  
> > > > – that often requires no small amount of trial and erroor, of  
> > > > experimentation to see what does and doesn’t work. That, in  
> > > > turn, implies an adequate reference condition for the  
> > > > result. In some cases, the experimenting or trial and error  
> > > > is done simply for the sake of finding out what happens, of  
> > > > identifying the result associated with this or that action.  
> > > > Here, the learning is focused on the relationship between  
> > > > actions and results, between ends and means.
> 
> > > > Â
> 
> > > > ```
> > > > Another area of learning has to do with
> > > > 
> > > > ```
> > > > 
> > > > the judgments we believe others are making about us (e.g.,  
> > > > I’m a nice guy, a pain in the neck, competent or  
> > > > incompetent, rude or polite, etc., etc.). Again, we are  
> > > > focused on the relationships between actions and outcomes or  
> > > > results. Enter here some social expectations or reference  
> > > > conditions (e.g., I don’t want to unnecessarily offend  
> > > > anyone, I need to tread carefully around Dick because he  
> > > > goes off very easily, Shirly is easy to work with and I can  
> > > > relax around her, etc., etc.).
> 
> > > > Â
> 
> > > > ```
> > > > So, from a PCT perspective and as a
> > > > 
> > > > ```
> > > > 
> > > > long-time student of learning and human behavior, I’m most  
> > > > interested in how reference conditions for results or  
> > > > outcomes, are established or adopted; how we come to master  
> > > > the actions associated with a particular outcome or set of  
> > > > outcomes; how the PCT hierarchy fits in with all that; and  
> > > > what’s different when our learning is being facilitated from  
> > > > when we’re doing it on our own.
> 
> > > > Â
> 
> > > > Â
> 
> > > > Fred Nickols
> 
> > > > Â
> 
> > > > **From:** Rupert Young  
> > > > [[mailto:rupert@perceptualrobots.com](mailto:rupert@perceptualrobots.com)]  
> > > > **Sent:** Sunday, November 19, 2017 1:54 PM  
> > > > **To:** csgnet@lists.illinois.edu  
> > > > **Subject:** LWG: Learning working group
> 
> > > > Â
> 
> > > > [From Rupert Young (2017.11.19 18.55)]
> 
> > > > ```
> > > > Regarding collaborations I think the most useful topic to
> > > > 
> > > > ```
> > > > 
> > > > pursue is learning within PCT. Although there is a general  
> > > > theory of how learning, by reorganisation, happens in PCT  
> > > > and there are some demonstrations showing it working within  
> > > > simulations the theory lacks detail and the demos are quite  
> > > > limited. There is, therefore, a lot of scope for a more  
> > > > comprehensive understanding of PCT learning that can be  
> > > > demonstrated in working models, particularly of how  
> > > > perceptual functions arise. The ultimate goal would be, I  
> > > > think, to throw an unorganised hierarchy at a control  
> > > > problem and it would learn a resolution. This would be a  
> > > > great coup in the field of AI and machine learning, as well  
> > > > as in the behaviour of living systems, to show the power of  
> > > > PCT. An initial target application could be something like  
> > > > the mountain car problem.
> 
> > > > ```
> > > > Therefore, I would like to set up a learning working group
> > > > 
> > > > ```
> > > > 
> > > > for those interested in taking part by building models,  
> > > > contributing expertise or just following. If anyone is  
> > > > interested let me know and we’ll either set up a separate  
> > > > email group or tag subjects on csgnet with “LWG”.
> 
> > > > –
> 
> > > > **Regards,  
> > > > Rupert**
> 
> > > > Â
> 
> > >
> 
> >

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![rupert](http://discourse.iapct.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/r/f14d63/32.png) [@rupert](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/rupert)\
**Post date:** [November 20, 2017, 10:48am UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/learning-working-group/6291/7 "2017-11-20T10:48:04Z")

</div>

[From Rupert Young (2017.11.20 10.45)]

```
  Thanks to all those who have responded. So far I've registered

```

interest from Eetu, Fred, Leeane, Joh, Sean, Martin, Richard and  
Warren.

Rupert

> **···**
>
> On 20/11/2017 09:56, John Kirkland  
> wrote:
> 
> > [JK 2017.11.20 2255 NZT]
> 
> > Please include me as well.
> 
> > 
> 
> > Cheers
> 
> > ```
> > On Mon, Nov 20, 2017 at 10:47 PM,
> > 
> > ```
> > 
> > Rupert Young [rupert@perceptualrobots.com](mailto:rupert@perceptualrobots.com)  
> > wrote:
> > 
> > > [From Rupert Young (2017.11.20 9.45)]
> 
> > > ```
> > > Hi Joh, welcome to the list, and to the learning group.
> > > 
> > > ```
> > > 
> > > I’m not familiar with Wertheimer’s work, though others  
> > > may be, so feel free to give a brief overview if you  
> > > like.
> 
> > > Rupert
> 
> > > ```
> > > On
> > > 
> > > ```
> > > 
> > > 19/11/2017 22:09, Joh Orengo wrote:
> 
> > > > Hi all,
> 
> > > >
> 
> > > > ```
> > > > I'm new to the mailing list. I'm an independent
> > > > 
> > > > ```
> > > > 
> > > > researcher in PCT, mostly interested in how it can  
> > > > be applied to strategic thinking, leadership, the  
> > > > smoother functioning of organizations, and even  
> > > > video games. I’d also now like to add learning to  
> > > > that list.
> 
> > > >
> 
> > > > ```
> > > > So count me in, too, Rupert. I'll also probably
> > > > 
> > > > ```
> > > > 
> > > > just follow mostly; although I’d like to  
> > > > contribute where I may.
> 
> > > >
> 
> > > > ```
> > > > I have 12+ years teaching English as a second
> > > > 
> > > > ```
> > > > 
> > > > language from the kindergarten level (4 to 5 year  
> > > > olds) to the university level, so I’ve been in the  
> > > > trenches. I’ve also been thinking about how  
> > > > reorganization relates to Max Wertheimer’s  
> > > > productive thinking, abductive reasoning, and how  
> > > > a surprising event can hinder learning and,  
> > > > therefore, adaptation as discussed in (military)  
> > > > deception studies. I’ll sketch out how I think  
> > > > these may relate in a later post.
> 
> > > >
> 
> > > > Best regards,
> 
> > > > Joh Orengo
> 
> > > >
> 
> > > >
> 
> > > > ```
> > > > Sent
> > > > 
> > > > ```
> > > > 
> > > > with [ProtonMail](https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__protonmail.com&d=DwMDaQ&c=8hUWFZcy2Z-Za5rBPlktOQ&r=-dJBNItYEMOLt6aj_KjGi2LMO_Q8QB-ZzxIZIF8DGyQ&m=mgwGELR2d3Vw72KBNJbKK8C5BHZP_lttgu3aT2oP4Sc&s=Njg_UTy-8MTx33Lq4R4wg8M-HTc_Zgpo7MP7ic0KFzk&e=)  
> > > > Secure Email.
> 
> > > >
> 
> > > > > -------- Original Message --------
> 
> > > > > Subject: RE: Learning working group
> 
> > > > > Local Time: November 19, 2017 10:07 PM
> 
> > > > > UTC Time: November 19, 2017 8:07 PM
> 
> > > > > From: [fred@nickols.us](mailto:fred@nickols.us)
> 
> > > > > To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
> 
> > > > >
> 
> > > > > ```
> > > > > From Fred Nickols
> > > > > 
> > > > > ```
> > > > > 
> > > > > (2017.11.19.1434 ET)
> 
> > > > > Â
> 
> > > > > ```
> > > > > Count me in,
> > > > > 
> > > > > ```
> > > > > 
> > > > > Rupert. I’ll probably just follow although  
> > > > > I do know a bit about human learning, mainly  
> > > > > what works and doesn’t work more so than any  
> > > > > particular theory.
> 
> > > > > Â
> 
> > > > > ```
> > > > > As a matter of
> > > > > 
> > > > > ```
> > > > > 
> > > > > fact, I’m so excited by the prospect that I  
> > > > > dashed off a few thoughts. I’m sending them  
> > > > > along as being representative of the kind of  
> > > > > knowledge and thinking I might be able to  
> > > > > offer. If they’re not a good fit with what  
> > > > > you have in mind, feel free to say so. I  
> > > > > won’t be offended. I know quite well that  
> > > > > my practical orientation and the theoretical  
> > > > > orientation that dominates this list are  
> > > > > often miles apart. So, here are my initial  
> > > > > reactions:
> 
> > > > > Â
> 
> > > > > ```
> > > > > First off, memory and
> > > > > 
> > > > > ```
> > > > > 
> > > > > imagination, the ability to recall information  
> > > > > and images and the ability to envision the way  
> > > > > things should look or work is central to  
> > > > > learning. I show someone how to disassemble  
> > > > > and reassemble a globe valve and, sure enough,  
> > > > > they can do it. Some can do it right away and  
> > > > > others need a little practice with some  
> > > > > commentary from an observer. In PCT terms, we  
> > > > > are at the very least talking about  
> > > > > establishing reference conditions, goals or  
> > > > > standards, that the trainee will strive to  
> > > > > meet.
> 
> > > > > Â
> 
> > > > > ```
> > > > > Second, it is often the
> > > > > 
> > > > > ```
> > > > > 
> > > > > case in training that we provide what PCTers  
> > > > > might call a “disturbance free� environment.  
> > > > > We train them to do the basics, free from  
> > > > > disruptions and distractions. Later on, the  
> > > > > same training might entail gradually adding  
> > > > > these factors back in until the trainee can  
> > > > > perform a task under realistic conditions.
> 
> > > > > ```
> > > > > Our empirical knowledge of
> > > > > 
> > > > > ```
> > > > > 
> > > > > how people learn is actually quite good; we  
> > > > > can and do successfully train lots of people  
> > > > > to do lots of things; we know how to structure  
> > > > > their experiences so they learn, so they  
> > > > > become capable of doing what we’re out to  
> > > > > equip them to do. Our theoretical grasp of  
> > > > > how people learn is quite developed but it  
> > > > > doesn’t take into account a view of people as  
> > > > > living control systems so it falls short on  
> > > > > that score, whether from the cognitivists or  
> > > > > the behaviorists.
> 
> > > > > ```
> > > > > We know also that an
> > > > > 
> > > > > ```
> > > > > 
> > > > > individual’s learning can be inhibited by the  
> > > > > person’s view of himself. I’ve had more than  
> > > > > one of trainees shake his or her head and say,  
> > > > > “I can’t do that; it’s beyond me.� I’ve also  
> > > > > been able to turn around those negative  
> > > > > self-images and get them to believe in  
> > > > > themselves. So one factor to consider in all  
> > > > > this consists of the roadblocks to learning  
> > > > > that the learners themselves erect.
> 
> > > > > Â
> 
> > > > > ```
> > > > > In that vein, I think there
> > > > > 
> > > > > ```
> > > > > 
> > > > > is something akin to a structured and  
> > > > > organized knowledge base present in the human  
> > > > > mind. It is very much affected by knowledge  
> > > > > and examples and not everything works the same  
> > > > > with everyone. Individuals learn and they do  
> > > > > so individually.
> 
> > > > > Â
> 
> > > > > ```
> > > > > When training, it is
> > > > > 
> > > > > ```
> > > > > 
> > > > > important to convey or communicate the results  
> > > > > to be achieved and the actions that will  
> > > > > achieve them. Enter here the practice with  
> > > > > feedback mentioned earlier. However, when  
> > > > > people are learning on their own – figuring  
> > > > > out what to do so to speak – that often  
> > > > > requires no small amount of trial and error,  
> > > > > of experimentation to see what does and  
> > > > > doesn’t work. That, in turn, implies an  
> > > > > adequate reference condition for the result.  
> > > > > In some cases, the experimenting or trial and  
> > > > > error is done simply for the sake of finding  
> > > > > out what happens, of identifying the result  
> > > > > associated with this or that action. Here,  
> > > > > the learning is focused on the relationship  
> > > > > between actions and results, between ends and  
> > > > > means.
> 
> > > > > Â
> 
> > > > > ```
> > > > > Another area of learning
> > > > > 
> > > > > ```
> > > > > 
> > > > > has to do with the judgments we believe others  
> > > > > are making about us (e.g., I’m a nice guy, a  
> > > > > pain in the neck, competent or incompetent,  
> > > > > rude or polite, etc., etc.). Again, we are  
> > > > > focused on the relationships between actions  
> > > > > and outcomes or results. Enter here some  
> > > > > social expectations or reference conditions  
> > > > > (e.g., I don’t want to unnecessarily offend  
> > > > > anyone, I need to tread carefully around Dick  
> > > > > because he goes off very easily, Shirly is  
> > > > > easy to work with and I can relax around her,  
> > > > > etc., etc.).
> 
> > > > > Â
> 
> > > > > ```
> > > > > So, from a PCT perspective
> > > > > 
> > > > > ```
> > > > > 
> > > > > and as a long-time student of learning and  
> > > > > human behavior, I’m most interested in how  
> > > > > reference conditions for results or outcomes,  
> > > > > are established or adopted; how we come to  
> > > > > master the actions associated with a  
> > > > > particular outcome or set of outcomes; how the  
> > > > > PCT hierarchy fits in with all that; and  
> > > > > what’s different when our learning is being  
> > > > > facilitated from when we’re doing it on our  
> > > > > own.
> 
> > > > > Â
> 
> > > > > Â
> 
> > > > > Fred Nickols
> 
> > > > > Â
> 
> > > > > **From:** Rupert Young [[mailto:rupert@perceptualrobots.com](mailto:rupert@perceptualrobots.com) ]  
> > > > > **Sent:** Sunday, November 19, 2017  
> > > > > 1:54 PM  
> > > > > **To:** csgnet@lists.illinois.edu  
> > > > > **Subject:** LWG: Learning working  
> > > > > group
> 
> > > > > Â
> 
> > > > > [From Rupert Young (2017.11.19 18.55)]
> 
> > > > > ```
> > > > > Regarding collaborations I think the most
> > > > > 
> > > > > ```
> > > > > 
> > > > > useful topic to pursue is learning within PCT.  
> > > > > Although there is a general theory of how  
> > > > > learning, by reorganisation, happens in PCT  
> > > > > and there are some demonstrations showing it  
> > > > > working within simulations the theory lacks  
> > > > > detail and the demos are quite limited. There  
> > > > > is, therefore, a lot of scope for a more  
> > > > > comprehensive understanding of PCT learning  
> > > > > that can be demonstrated in working models,  
> > > > > particularly of how perceptual functions  
> > > > > arise. The ultimate goal would be, I think, to  
> > > > > throw an unorganised hierarchy at a control  
> > > > > problem and it would learn a resolution. This  
> > > > > would be a great coup in the field of AI and  
> > > > > machine learning, as well as in the behaviour  
> > > > > of living systems, to show the power of PCT.  
> > > > > An initial target application could be  
> > > > > something like the mountain car problem.
> 
> > > > > ```
> > > > > Therefore, I would like to set up a learning
> > > > > 
> > > > > ```
> > > > > 
> > > > > working group for those interested in taking  
> > > > > part by building models, contributing  
> > > > > expertise or just following. If anyone is  
> > > > > interested let me know and we’ll either set up  
> > > > > a separate email group or tag subjects on  
> > > > > csgnet with “LWG”.
> 
> > > > > –
> 
> > > > > **Regards,  
> > > > > Rupert**
> 
> > > > > Â
> 
> > > >
> 
> > >
> 
> >

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![richardhpfau](http://discourse.iapct.org/user_avatar/discourse.iapct.org/richardhpfau/32/24_2.png) [@richardhpfau](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/richardhpfau)\
**Post date:** [November 20, 2017, 2:14pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/learning-working-group/6291/8 "2017-11-20T14:14:43Z")

</div>

[From: Richard Pfau (2017.11.20 09:15 EST)

Count me in, probably more as an interested follower, but if I can make meaningful contributions, I’ll try to do so.

> **···**
>
> On Mon, Nov 20, 2017 at 5:48 AM, Rupert Young [rupert@perceptualrobots.com](mailto:rupert@perceptualrobots.com) wrote:
> 
> > [From Rupert Young (2017.11.20 10.45)]
> 
> > ```
> > Thanks to all those who have responded. So far I've registered
> > 
> > ```
> > 
> > interest from Eetu, Fred, Leeane, Joh, Sean, Martin, Richard and  
> > Warren.
> 
> > Rupert
> 
> > 
> 
> > ```
> > On 20/11/2017 09:56, John Kirkland
> > 
> > ```
> > 
> > wrote:
> 
> > > [JK 2017.11.20 2255 NZT]
> 
> > > Please include me as well.
> 
> > >
> 
> > > Cheers
> 
> > 
> 
> ```
> On Mon, Nov 20, 2017 at 10:47 PM,
> 
> ```
> 
> Rupert Young [rupert@perceptualrobots.com](mailto:rupert@perceptualrobots.com)  
> wrote:
> 
> > [From Rupert Young (2017.11.20 9.45)]
> 
> > ```
> > Hi Joh, welcome to the list, and to the learning group.
> > 
> > ```
> > 
> > I’m not familiar with Wertheimer’s work, though others  
> > may be, so feel free to give a brief overview if you  
> > like.
> 
> > Rupert
> 
> > ```
> > On
> > 
> > ```
> > 
> > 19/11/2017 22:09, Joh Orengo wrote:
> 
> > > Hi all,
> 
> > >
> 
> > > ```
> > > I'm new to the mailing list. I'm an independent
> > > 
> > > ```
> > > 
> > > researcher in PCT, mostly interested in how it can  
> > > be applied to strategic thinking, leadership, the  
> > > smoother functioning of organizations, and even  
> > > video games. I’d also now like to add learning to  
> > > that list.
> 
> > >
> 
> > > ```
> > > So count me in, too, Rupert. I'll also probably
> > > 
> > > ```
> > > 
> > > just follow mostly; although I’d like to  
> > > contribute where I may.
> 
> > >
> 
> > > ```
> > > I have 12+ years teaching English as a second
> > > 
> > > ```
> > > 
> > > language from the kindergarten level (4 to 5 year  
> > > olds) to the university level, so I’ve been in the  
> > > trenches. I’ve also been thinking about how  
> > > reorganization relates to Max Wertheimer’s  
> > > productive thinking, abductive reasoning, and how  
> > > a surprising event can hinder learning and,  
> > > therefore, adaptation as discussed in (military)  
> > > deception studies. I’ll sketch out how I think  
> > > these may relate in a later post.
> 
> > >
> 
> > > Best regards,
> 
> > > Joh Orengo
> 
> > >
> 
> > >
> 
> > > ```
> > > Sent
> > > 
> > > ```
> > > 
> > > with [ProtonMail](https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__protonmail.com&d=DwMDaQ&c=8hUWFZcy2Z-Za5rBPlktOQ&r=-dJBNItYEMOLt6aj_KjGi2LMO_Q8QB-ZzxIZIF8DGyQ&m=mgwGELR2d3Vw72KBNJbKK8C5BHZP_lttgu3aT2oP4Sc&s=Njg_UTy-8MTx33Lq4R4wg8M-HTc_Zgpo7MP7ic0KFzk&e=)  
> > > Secure Email.
> 
> > >
> 
> > > > -------- Original Message --------
> 
> > > > Subject: RE: Learning working group
> 
> > > > Local Time: November 19, 2017 10:07 PM
> 
> > > > UTC Time: November 19, 2017 8:07 PM
> 
> > > > From: [fred@nickols.us](mailto:fred@nickols.us)
> 
> > > > To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
> 
> > > >
> 
> > > > ```
> > > > From Fred Nickols
> > > > 
> > > > ```
> > > > 
> > > > (2017.11.19.1434 ET)
> 
> > > > Â
> 
> > > > ```
> > > > Count me in,
> > > > 
> > > > ```
> > > > 
> > > > Rupert. I’ll probably just follow although  
> > > > I do know a bit about human learning, mainly  
> > > > what works and doesn’t work more so than any  
> > > > particular theory.
> 
> > > > Â
> 
> > > > ```
> > > > As a matter of
> > > > 
> > > > ```
> > > > 
> > > > fact, I’m so excited by the prospect that I  
> > > > dashed off a few thoughts. I’m sending them  
> > > > along as being representative of the kind of  
> > > > knowledge and thinking I might be able to  
> > > > offer. If they’re not a good fit with what  
> > > > you have in mind, feel free to say so. I  
> > > > won’t be offended. I know quite well that  
> > > > my practical orientation and the theoretical  
> > > > orientation that dominates this list are  
> > > > often miles apart. So, here are my initial  
> > > > reactions:
> 
> > > > Â
> 
> > > > ```
> > > > First off, memory and
> > > > 
> > > > ```
> > > > 
> > > > imagination, the ability to recall information  
> > > > and images and the ability to envision the way  
> > > > things should look or work is central to  
> > > > learning. I show someone how to disassemble  
> > > > and reassemble a globe valve and, sure enough,  
> > > > they can do it. Some can do it right away and  
> > > > others need a little practice with some  
> > > > commentary from an observer. In PCT terms, we  
> > > > are at the very least talking about  
> > > > establishing reference conditions, goals or  
> > > > standards, that the trainee will strive to  
> > > > meet.
> 
> > > > Â
> 
> > > > ```
> > > > Second, it is often the
> > > > 
> > > > ```
> > > > 
> > > > case in training that we provide what PCTers  
> > > > might call a “disturbance free� environment.  
> > > > We train them to do the basics, free from  
> > > > disruptions and distractions. Later on, the  
> > > > same training might entail gradually adding  
> > > > these factors back in until the trainee can  
> > > > perform a task under realistic conditions.
> 
> > > > ```
> > > > Our empirical knowledge of
> > > > 
> > > > ```
> > > > 
> > > > how people learn is actually quite good; we  
> > > > can and do successfully train lots of people  
> > > > to do lots of things; we know how to structure  
> > > > their experiences so they learn, so they  
> > > > become capable of doing what we’re out to  
> > > > equip them to do. Our theoretical grasp of  
> > > > how people learn is quite developed but it  
> > > > doesn’t take into account a view of people as  
> > > > living control systems so it falls short on  
> > > > that score, whether from the cognitivists or  
> > > > the behaviorists.
> 
> > > > ```
> > > > We know also that an
> > > > 
> > > > ```
> > > > 
> > > > individual’s learning can be inhibited by the  
> > > > person’s view of himself. I’ve had more than  
> > > > one of trainees shake his or her head and say,  
> > > > “I can’t do that; it’s beyond me.� I’ve also  
> > > > been able to turn around those negative  
> > > > self-images and get them to believe in  
> > > > themselves. So one factor to consider in all  
> > > > this consists of the roadblocks to learning  
> > > > that the learners themselves erect.
> 
> > > > Â
> 
> > > > ```
> > > > In that vein, I think there
> > > > 
> > > > ```
> > > > 
> > > > is something akin to a structured and  
> > > > organized knowledge base present in the human  
> > > > mind. It is very much affected by knowledge  
> > > > and examples and not everything works the same  
> > > > with everyone. Individuals learn and they do  
> > > > so individually.
> 
> > > > Â
> 
> > > > ```
> > > > When training, it is
> > > > 
> > > > ```
> > > > 
> > > > important to convey or communicate the results  
> > > > to be achieved and the actions that will  
> > > > achieve them. Enter here the practice with  
> > > > feedback mentioned earlier. However, when  
> > > > people are learning on their own – figuriing  
> > > > out what to do so to speak – that often  
> > > > requires no small amount of trial and error,  
> > > > of experimentation to see what does and  
> > > > doesn’t work. That, in turn, implies an  
> > > > adequate reference condition for the result.  
> > > > In some cases, the experimenting or trial and  
> > > > error is done simply for the sake of finding  
> > > > out what happens, of identifying the result  
> > > > associated with this or that action. Here,  
> > > > the learning is focused on the relationship  
> > > > between actions and results, between ends and  
> > > > means.
> 
> > > > Â
> 
> > > > ```
> > > > Another area of learning
> > > > 
> > > > ```
> > > > 
> > > > has to do with the judgments we believe others  
> > > > are making about us (e.g., I’m a nice guy, a  
> > > > pain in the neck, competent or incompetent,  
> > > > rude or polite, etc., etc.). Again, we are  
> > > > focused on the relationships between actions  
> > > > and outcomes or results. Enter here some  
> > > > social expectations or reference conditions  
> > > > (e.g., I don’t want to unnecessarily offend  
> > > > anyone, I need to tread carefully around Dick  
> > > > because he goes off very easily, Shirly is  
> > > > easy to work with and I can relax around her,  
> > > > etc., etc.).
> 
> > > > Â
> 
> > > > ```
> > > > So, from a PCT perspective
> > > > 
> > > > ```
> > > > 
> > > > and as a long-time student of learning and  
> > > > human behavior, I’m most interested in how  
> > > > reference conditions for results or outcomes,  
> > > > are established or adopted; how we come to  
> > > > master the actions associated with a  
> > > > particular outcome or set of outcomes; how the  
> > > > PCT hierarchy fits in with all that; and  
> > > > what’s different when our learning is being  
> > > > facilitated from when we’re doing it on our  
> > > > own.
> 
> > > > Â
> 
> > > > Â
> 
> > > > Fred Nickols
> 
> > > > Â
> 
> > > > **From:** Rupert Young [[mailto:rupert@perceptualrobots.com](mailto:rupert@perceptualrobots.com) ]  
> > > > **Sent:** Sunday, November 19, 2017  
> > > > 1:54 PM  
> > > > **To:** csgnet@lists.illinois.edu  
> > > > **Subject:** LWG: Learning working  
> > > > group
> 
> > > > Â
> 
> > > > [From Rupert Young (2017.11.19 18.55)]
> 
> > > > ```
> > > > Regarding collaborations I think the most
> > > > 
> > > > ```
> > > > 
> > > > useful topic to pursue is learning within PCT.  
> > > > Although there is a general theory of how  
> > > > learning, by reorganisation, happens in PCT  
> > > > and there are some demonstrations showing it  
> > > > working within simulations the theory lacks  
> > > > detail and the demos are quite limited. There  
> > > > is, therefore, a lot of scope for a more  
> > > > comprehensive understanding of PCT learning  
> > > > that can be demonstrated in working models,  
> > > > particularly of how perceptual functions  
> > > > arise. The ultimate goal would be, I think, to  
> > > > throw an unorganised hierarchy at a control  
> > > > problem and it would learn a resolution. This  
> > > > would be a great coup in the field of AI and  
> > > > machine learning, as well as in the behaviour  
> > > > of living systems, to show the power of PCT.  
> > > > An initial target application could be  
> > > > something like the mountain car problem.
> 
> > > > ```
> > > > Therefore, I would like to set up a learning
> > > > 
> > > > ```
> > > > 
> > > > working group for those interested in taking  
> > > > part by building models, contributing  
> > > > expertise or just following. If anyone is  
> > > > interested let me know and we’ll either set up  
> > > > a separate email group or tag subjects on  
> > > > csgnet with “LWG”.
> 
> > > > –
> 
> > > > **Regards,  
> > > > Rupert**
> 
> > > > Â
> 
> > >
> 
> >

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![flenk](http://discourse.iapct.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/f/977dab/32.png) [@flenk](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/flenk)\
**Post date:** [November 20, 2017, 2:58pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/learning-working-group/6291/9 "2017-11-20T14:58:38Z")

</div>

[From Frank Lenk (2017.11.20 09.55)]

As I had to change the direction of my dissertation due to the fact I couldn’t crack on my own how to create and then reorganize perceptual functions, at least the perceptual functions that relate to racism, I am intensely interested in this topic and would at least like to follow its progress.

Frank

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Rupert,  
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;  
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;\> [From Rupert Young (2017.11.20 10.15)]  
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;\>  
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;\> (Martin Taylor 2017.11.19.14.14]  
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;\>\> ....  
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;\>\>  
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;\>\> I think the first question to ask would be what the intrinsic  
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;\>\> variables might be, because the robot won't learn if it doesn't have  
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;\>\> any indication that its learning is of some benefit. I don't think  
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;\>\> simple quality of control in itself is sufficient, but it's probably  
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;\>\> necessary.  
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;\>  
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;\> Sure. But what is intrinsic error; is it not error from another  
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;\> (higher) system?  
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;\>  
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;No, it is a quite separate system according to Powers. In living things  
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;it includes variables such as blood oxygen level, hormonal levels, lots  
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;of physiological variables I don't know of, but not perceived within the  
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;perceptual control hierarchy. Apart from that kind of thing, the basic  
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;description of "intrinsic variable" is that it is a variable that causes  
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;you potentially life-threatening problems if it goes astray, or even  
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;more fundamentally it is a variable that reduces the probability of the  
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;organism propagating its genes to descendants when its value departs  
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;from its (ever-changing) optimum value.  
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;  
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Robots are different, unless you conceive their generations as  
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;evolutionary (which I guess they are in a sense). In the case of a robot  
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;designed for a purpose, that purpose is in the designer, but to the  
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;robot it is an intrinsic variable, imperceptible. So long as the robot  
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;doesn't fulfil its purpose, the designer keeps reorganising  
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;(redesigning) it.  
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;  
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;That said, I think we can prove that quality of control can act like an  
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;intrinsic variable. In any event, in Bill's simulations, like the Arm 2  
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;demo, quality of control is the only intrinsic variable. Behind that,  
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;though, there was the intrinsic variable provided by Bill, the purpose  
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;that the arm demonstrate the power of reorganization.  
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;  
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;An autonomous robot must have intrinsic variables to determine how the  
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;speed of reorganization is distributed over its hierarchy. Some people  
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;have suggested Asimov's Three Laws as possibilities. A guided robot may  
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;have its intrinsic variables within the designer, but I think one has to  
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;be careful, especially in this project, to distinguish the cases.  
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;  
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Your purpose as I understand it is to get a robot to learn something  
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;without the designer saying, in effect, "that's good, keep going that  
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;way" or "That's worse, change your direction of modification." The robot  
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;has to determine for itself whether its "internal e-coli" keeps going or  
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;randomly changes direction in its internal structure modification  
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;process (reorganization). To do that, it must have intrinsic variables  
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;that determine by their fidelity to their reference values how fast  
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;reorganization should proceed (how quickly "keep going" a or "tumble"  
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;events occur).  
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;  
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Martin

> **···**
>
> On 11/20/17, 9:35 AM, "Martin Taylor" \<[mmt-csg@mmtaylor.net](mailto:mmt-csg@mmtaylor.net)\> wrote:  
> &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;On 2017/11/20 5:13 AM, Rupert Young wrote: