from [ Marc Abrams (990714.1456) ]
[From Bruce Gregory (990714.1305 EDT)]
One problem some people have with accepting PCT is the conviction that
we act in order to achieve goals. The PCT view is that we most often act
to counter disturbances, not to achieve goals. (If control were perfect,
this would always be true.) One cause of misunderstanding may be a
failure to distinguish between actions under two differing
circumstances. In the first case, the actions _are_ the perception I am
controlling. In the second case the actions counter a disturbance to a
different perception that I am controlling. For example, if you ask me
why I am going to my garage in the morning, my answer would that I need
to be at a meeting in Cambridge at 10:00 a.m. This certainly sounds like
a goal, and it seems if my actions are "generated" by my efforts to
reach this goal.
The story from a PCT perspective it that what I am doing is controlling
a sequence of perceptions, one of which is the perception that I am
walking from the foyer to the garage. My goal is to perceive myself
walking and that is what I perceive--I am successfully exercising
control--I have achieved this particular goal. This is what I mean by my
actions being the perception I am controlling. If I tripped, my actions
would be those necessary to stabilize the perception that I am walking.
The controlling of sequences is only _part_ of what you just described.
Overall you have a plan ( in memory ) of getting to Cambridge for a 10 am
meeting. But you need to control for literally hundreds of things in order
for this to happen. At one level you might be "aware" of the various steps
you need to take ( the sequence )in order to accomplish this plan When you
walk to the driveway, you are aware of what this means in terms of your
plan, but you are not "aware" of _how_ you are actually moving. ( i.e. the
control of the muscles and coordination and balance necessary to navigate
even the flatest of surfaces ) These lower level systems would be in
automatic mode relative to the higher level systems. The higher level
systems ( in this case, including the level of sequence ) does not need to
know _how_ you are maintaing control of your movement ( until or unless
there is an error, "Damn that skateboard." :-)) But as soon as control is
reestablished it is again pushed into the background. Once in the car, you
again understand at what point in the plan you are ( by imagining it ). When
you drive, you are aware of ( hopefully 
) where you are relative to
other cars, speed, radio, etc. But you are _not_ aware of _how_ you are
controlling your foot to move the gas pedal and brake. You are not aware of
_how_ you need to move your arms and hands to steer the car. You don't know
_how_ you moved your fingers and put that cassette tape into the player.
_Unless_ of course there is an error. Behind _each_ of these is a _sequence
of events_ that you are controlling for and are unaware of, _While_ you are
controlling for the sequence of your plan to get to Cambridge.
If you have the CSG Conference tape #1 from the 1994 Conference, take a look
at Dag Forssell's presentations on a) explanation (of PCT) and b) Memory.
the tape also has some terrific stuff from Bill, Rick and Tom Bourbon. The
conference has 3 tapes and you can get them from Dag,
His e-mail: team@forsselltrans.com
I don't think I've seen a discussion that makes this distinction clear.
Perhaps because I haven't looked in the right place, or because my
thinking is off base. (In any case, the meeting at 10:00 is at the send
of a length sequence of desired perceptions, but it plays no causal role
in my trip to my garage.)
I think your point about actions was a good one. Rick pointed that out to us
when I said that _all_actions are due to error correction
Your thinking is not off base. It's just not _clearly_ on the target. As
Dag pointed out at the conference. At _any_ point in time there are
literally 800 control processes wide by X number of levels deep. Each one in
some state at any given point in time. Bill's attempt in chap 15 to explain
this is important ( no I won't give it up ). Because _without_ memory
you _can't_ explain how the entire system works.
Dag also postulated that memory works without switches. That the 4 modes are
in affect but are determined by the _strength_ of the signals passing
through them. A very interesting hour. I highly recommend it. ( now everyone
will probably go out and burn their tapes )
Have I got any of this right, Rick?
Yes Rick, any snidies
Marc