[From Bill Powers (20009.0809.1212 MDT)]
Hi, Bill !
I’m sorry for this post, but I don’t only have a feeling that I was
cheated,
but I’m also dissapointed and hurt by your actions. Although there can be
a
possibility, as I’ve always wrote, that maybe I didn’t understood
something
right, I think that private conversations should be respected. So are
there
any values of PCT left now ?
Please don’t feel hurt. When you respond to a post on CSGnet, it goes to
everyone on the list (131 people at last count, with some entries
including whole departments). I am involved with continuing conversations
with everyone who posts to CSGnet, as well as a few that are direct. I
should also mention that I have other concerns that often limit how much
time I can give to my email, starting with picking up my granddaughter
after school on the days when her mother works, and including my
pulmonary rehabilitation program for COPD, my treatments for atrial
fibrillation, managing my oxygen supply for traveling away from home,
shopping for groceries and cooking them, and if there is time, eating
them.
I’m answering on your post to
Waren Mansell, as I think you missed some
points : intentionally or unintentionally !
Bill_P : At this point you’re doing research, not just following a
recipe.
What we’e missing here is some way of detecting reorganization when
it’s
going on in a real system. You can propose anything you like as an
intrinsic
variable (as long as it’s inside the organism, I suppose). But we need
some
help from nature.
B_H : I don’t understand here what could it mean “help from
nature”, but I
think that could be any physiological book, describing or explaining
how
human basically works, based on many human experiances.
BP: Yes, we certainly need that and your ideas about searching for
relevant knowledge are very welcome. Most of the professionals on CSGnet
have at least some acquaintance with physiology, neurology, and (in my
case a very little bit of) biochemistry. But I’m sure everyone would
welcome some more detailed explorations by someone who knows the subject
well.
By “help from nature”, however, I didn’t mean from the existing
literature so much as help from new experiments that the literature
doesn’t directly address. For example we need to figure out ways of
detecting when reoganization is occurred. The only way I know of right
now is through repeated measurements of the parameters of behavioral
models so we can see what happens when there are large persistent errors
of control behavior. When large errors persist, do those parameters begin
to change, and if they do, in what ways? Are the changes of the kind we
currently predict – steady continuing changes with periodic sudden
changes in the proportions by which the parameters change? I haven’t ever
tried such experiments, and don’t know of anyone who has.
BH: If I understand right
what’s happening, PCT needs to be “adjusted” at least to those
physiological
facts, which are relevant for PCT and probably our efforts should be
directed to explain PCT to others, who understand human behavior in
other
ways. I think that physiology is one of the sources, which is describing
or
trying to explain the human nature with help of chemistry, biology,
medical
experiences…and it’s relevant reference source to be compare
with.
[BP Added later: Please note that in the above paragraph, you fail to say
WHICH physiological facts would have been pertinent. If you had, I would
have seen my mistake immediately].
BP: As I say, I do agree with this, though I haven’t managed to reply to
your post yet. Your last post is still sitting in my In box waiting for
attention along with eight other posts. I’ve been working on my
evolution-and-PCT paper, and now on a big revision because of my having
neglected to include the homeostatic (and rheostatic) system in the
picture, which greatly alters the idea of what constitutes the
reorganizing system. Let this reply cover all previous posts!
Bill_P earlier: Don’t be
confused by the fact that the hierarchical error signal is an error
signal in a behavioral control system. To the reorganizing system,it’s
just a perceptual input, another variable like all other intrinsic
variables. Other variables that the reorganizing system senses are error
signals in homeostatic control systems, like those that control blood
pressure, body temperature, circulating glucose concentration, thyroxin
concentration, and so forth – the non-behavioral control systems, or
life-support systems.
Boris_H : Well If I understood right physiological explanation of
human
nature (the medical knowledge) doesn’t recognize "homeostatic
control
system", but it uses term homeostasis, what is defined by
physiologist as
unchangeable, constant conditions in human beings (living
systems).
I don’t think they are unchangeable and constant – is that really what
you mean? The throxin concentration in the bloodstream is certain not
unchangeable and constant; it is under control by a system involving the
pituitary and the thyroid, with TSH carrying the error signal - and it is
one of the often-mentioned homeostatic systems. The same goes for body
temperature, circulating glucose concentration, blood pressure, and so
forth. The outputs of every major organ are stabilized by feedback loops
which resist disturbances and restore biochemical and physiological
variables (like blood pressure) to approximate set-points after
disturbances. These variables require active control exactly because they
are not unchangeable and constant. The control systems are what defend
them – imperfectly – against disturbances, and also adjust their values
higher and lower when higher-order control (or what Myrsovski calls
“rheostasis”) occurs.
And if I
understood physiology right, all parts of the body are maintaining
these
conditions in the organism not only “homeostatic control
system” with
“essential variables” as you pointed out. That means also
behavioral control
system is contributing to homeostasis.
Indirectly, yes.
BH: I think physiological
meaning of homeostasis include organism as a whole, as a homestatical
unit. All parts of the body contribute to homeostasis and all parts share
homeostasis.
BP: I think we can identify many individual homeostatic systems which act
independently of each other, as the body’s temperature-regulating systems
act against temperature disturances. Of course there are interactions
among the systems; the metabolic control system disturbs the temperature
control system, so each system has to defend itself against the control
actions of the others.
The problem I see here, was in
PCT essence (W.T. Powers, picture on page 191
BH: in B:CP, 2005) which explained that behavior was the only
source (output of control of “essential variables”. If we look
very closely picture on page 191, from behavioral hierarchy output, we
can see that effects of behavior through environment are the only effects
which affects "essential
variables", and is seen very clearly that the whole loop is
controled in
reorganizing system with genetic source as reference. What means (if
I
understand right), that the only result (effect) which controls
"essential
(intrinsic)" variables error or counteract the disturbances, are
behavioral
acts on external environment. That could be a problem when explaining
PCT,
as I have it with students, which were acquanted with physiology or
Maturana. You can’t “sell” them anything.
Yes, and this is exactly what I was writing about in the last few days. I
had said exactly the same things two years ago and then somehow forgotten
about them. In fact, I have written about homeostatic control systems
many times before – they are obviously control systems, what I have
called the body’s “life support systems”. They were what I
called the “intrinsic control systems.” But I was so focused on
explaining how a physiological problem could have the effect of altering
the behavioral systems that I didn’t even try a detailed model that
discussed the homeostatic systems. That was what led to leaving the model
of the homeostatic systems incomplete. It’s very possible that your
asking about the “genetic source” of the intrinsic reference
signals and the effects of the reorganizing output on the intrinsic
variables was what brought the subject of homeostatic systems to the
center of my attention, and made me realize that I had totally left out
the outputs of the basic homeostatic systems. In your politeness, you
failed to say why you were mentioning the loop that went through
reorganization and back to intrinsic state – you didn’t say “Hey,
dummy, where are the physiological outputs of the homeostatic
systems?”
Now, rereading the discussion on pages 184 ff (edition 1),“Intrinsic
state and intrinsic error”, I see that my error was worse than
I thought. I simply didn’t indicate or mention in the text any way of
controlling the intrinsic variables directly, without reorganization. The
only path I showed was via the reorganization-altering effects on the
behavioral systems. When you pointed that out, it seemed OK – until I
realized what was missing.
BH: I noticed the problem last
year while I was lecturing PCT to Social Pedagogs on master’s degree. It
wasn’t problem, to explain PCT to students of Pedadgogics in subject
“Developmental Psychology” or to a students of
Psychology or to students of Sociology because they are mostly
“blind” to
biological and physiological facts. The problem were Social Pedagogs
who
were already acquanted with Maturana and his book “Tree of
knowledge”. They
were acquanted with biological “version” of control theory
supported with
strong biological evidence. There I have problems explaining how PCT
derive
from a view-point that behavioral acts are the only source of
counter-changing internal environment (intrinsic or Ashby’s
"essential
variables"). I had to use the only PCT explanation in that time,
Bruce
Abbott’s synopsis about PCT (I mentioned that in theme "Kids who
doesn’t
talk"). He clearly distinguished two operationaly intertwined
control
systems in the organism (automatic, probably autonomous nervous system)
and
behavioral (probably somatic). So it was somehow the only PCT
explanation
how organism work as a whole, not just how organisms behave. That’s why
I
proposed in our private conversation (if you remember in june 2009)
as
neccessary change in PCT or should I say adjustment with basic
physiological
facts. Now it’s fine. The necessary change was made, so it will be a
little
easier to promote PCT.
If you had said WHAT adjustment you had in mind, I would have seen your
point right away. I have known about homestatic systems since the very
beginning; I called them the “life support systems,” figuring
that I was talking to psychologists. I didn’t want to get into the
biochemistry or physiology because I knew little about them. In the back
of my mind I was thinking of them as control systems of the usual sort,
except primarily biochemical. The “intrinsic errors” that drive
reorganization were always, in my mind, prolonged and unusually large
error signals in the homeostatic control systems, errors that were too
big for the homeostatic systems to correct.
[OOPS!]
Bill_P : Having written all that for the first time ever, I now realize
that
I’ve reified the reorganizing system a couple of steps too far. I’ve
been
thinking of it as a set of complete control systems external to all
other
control systems in the brain and body, each with its own perceptual
function, comparator and reference signal, and output function that
produces
random changes in organization.
B_H : Yes this was one of the problems.
BP: At the time, I didn’t even remember that this wasn’t “the first
time ever.” Dag Forssell found the post from 2007 in which I said
all the same things.
Bill_P : But in previous
discussions I’ve always said that it’s "intrinsic
error" that drives reorganization. In other words, the intrinsic
error is
the error signal in some homeostatic system that is already a control
system
concerned with controlling the state of some intrinsic variable in the
body.
The only thing added by the so-called reorganizing system is the
conversion
of the error signal in an existing control system into a series of
random
changes. The reorganizing system is just another kind of output
function!
B_H : What can I say. You are right. Everybody makes mistakes.
Bill_P : [Another oops inserted later: we do need the input function
and
comparator in what I drew as the reorganizing system – but it’s a
homeostatic control system that needs them. And the reorganizing effects
in
the diagram are also just another aspect of an output function]
B_H : I still think it would be good to change “homeostatic control
system”
to some other term, maybe like Bruce called it “automatic” or
Gary Czico
called it when citating Bernard “internal environmental
control” (Things We Do).
BP: I’ve had fights with physiologists/psychologists before, on this
subject. I wrote something once, or maybe somebody else wrote it,
describing the body’s weight-control systems, and a physiologist wrote a
hot reponse:
Wirtschafter, D and Davis, JD: “Set points, settling points, and the
control of body weight”; 1: Physiol Behav. 1977
Jul;19(1):75-8. See:
[
](Set points, settling points, and the control of body weight - PubMed) He really didn’t like the idea of a control system, especially
one with a reference signal or set point. He preferred the old idea of
weight being the joint effect of independent contributing variables,
which just happened to balance and leave body weight at a relatively
constant level.
B_H : ??? Are you sure you
remember right ? Was Warren Mensell the only
source of your inspiration for the change you made in your Theory
?
BP: I was inspired by Warren Mansell, who reminded me that “other
loops” were involved, and you, though you didn’t say what the
missing factor was, and Dag Forsell who reminded me, to my surprise, that
I’d said the same things two years before.
Here is what I wrote in 2007, with all its uncanny similarity to what I
wrote several days ago:
···
=============================================================================
Martin Taylor 2007.12.23.23.43
I guess I wasn’t clear. An
“error” in perceptual control theory is the difference between
a reference value and a perceptual value in a control unit. The reason
there is no “intrinsic error” is that there is no reference
value for an intrinsic variable. If there is nothing for the value of a
variable to be compared against, the concept of “error” does
not apply.
[My comment continued]
On awakening this morning I got out B:CP and looked through it, with some
trepidation, for the discussion of homeostasis as it relates to intrinsic
reference signals and error signals.
Sure enough, it isn’t there. Neither “homeostasis” nor
“Cannon” appears in the index nor, as far as I can find, in the
text.
I was so focused on the connection between intrinsic error signals and
reorganization that I simply passed over the homeostatic systems in which
the reference signals and error signals appear. I’m sure I must have
written many times about homeostasis (I know I reported to CSGnet upon
discovering Mrosovsky’s “Rheostasis”), but I can’t find
anything about it in B:CP, even though I was quite aware of that subject
at the time of writing and considered it to show a level of biochemical
(and autonomic, as others have reminded me) control systems. I can see
that if another edition of B:CP ever appears, it is going to require an
added chapter on this subject, or a large revision of the chapter on
learning and reorganization. I tell you, discovering a blind spot that
large is very painful.
One painful aspect of it is remembering how, when Gary Cziko wrote about
Bernard and Cannon in Without Miracles, I wondered why he didn’t
credit me with applying control theory to homeostasis. The reason is now
quite clear: I didn’t. I only thought I had done so.
So: my somewhat perfunctory mention of the possibility of a lack of clear
communication on my part turns out to be a very likely explanation for
why you. Martin, and probably many others don’t realize that the
intrinsic control systems of which I spoke were the same homeostatic
systems that Bernard and then Cannon recognized, and that led Arturo
Rosenbleuth, a student of Cannon’s, to bring this subject to Norbert
Wiener’s attention, thus giving rise to cybernetics. My only addition was
to propose that large enough error signals (how I wish I had termed them
homeostatic error signals) cause reorganization of the behavioral
systems to begin. In my diagram of the relationship of the reorganizing
system to the behavioral hierarchy (Fig. 14.1) I show ONLY the
reorganizing effects of intrinsic error signals. The gap left by omitting
the local output functions that normally correct intrinsic errors is now
the most prominent feature of that diagram in my mind. How could I not
have seen what I was leaving out?
Dag Forssell, since it was you who drew the latest and clearest version
of Fig. 14.1, perhaps you could undertake to add those missing output
functions that convert intrinsic error signals into physiological effects
in that part of the diagram. But read on first.
Writing this, I now realize that the “ignoration” of the
homoeostatic control systems was more than a simple omission. I failed to
see a principle that becomes obvious when the homeostatic systems are
added in all their glory as complete control systems. When the
physiological loops are added, we see that reorganization is triggered by
excessive and prolonged error signals in somatic control systems –
just as it is triggered by excessive neural error signals in the
behavioral systems of the brain. This quickly brings in another
consideration that I have looked at and mentioned, which is that
“pain” in many cases (if not all) is simply an ordinary
perceptual signal that is excessive in magnitude, meaning that it is
causing very large error signals. Any perception, when carried to an
extreme magnitude, is painful – we try very hard to make it smaller. We
can now say that any error signal, whether in a biochemical, autonomic,
or behavioral control system, will, when large enough and protracted
enough, be experienced as pain and will cause reorganization to
begin.
This tells us that the reorganizing system must be a distributed system
that brings reorganization to all levels of control systems from bottom
to top. At the level of DNA, it exists in the form of repair enzymes. The
immune system is a higher-order version of repair enzymes. Reorganization
exists at every level and acts locally to that level. So we arrive at the
question, “what about amoebae?” And the answer, too.
Reorganization is simply an aspect of any level of biological control
systems.
And that brings up a realization delayed by some 35 years because of that
blind spot: every level of organization has ITS OWN reorganizing system
that senses excessive error and applies its reorganizing actions to that
level. So the diagram of Fig. 14.1 is probably wrong. It is not error at
the physiological level, but only error at the behavioral level, that
leads to reorganization at the behavioral (neural, brain) level.
Reorganization does result from excessive error at the homeostatic level,
but its effects happen at that level. If we reorganize our behavior
because of physiological problems, we do so only because those
physiological problems are not corrected by reorganization at the
physiological level, and lead to excessive errors in the behavioral
systems. It is the latter kind of error that leads to reorganization at
the behavioral level. So now we see that every new level has to deal with
whatever errors the levels below it can’t handle, with reorganization
happening just as control of any kind happens: locally.
I don’t know how well this revision will survive aging, but it’s pretty
clear that it wouldn’t have occurred to me if you, Martin, hadn’t made
the inflammatory proposal that there are no intrinsic reference signals.
==========================================================================
[End of 2007 excerpt]
I’m still not sure how this version has survived, but at least I’m
thinking about it again. It’s really wierd to see how close to my recent
thoughts this old post is – it’s as if some circuit went to sleep, and
then suddenly woke up where it left off.
Back to this post:
BP [earlier : Now comes a second
OOPS. All the other intrinsic variables, the ones controlled by
homeostatic systems, were also already under control by inherited control
systems containing error signals. I had just sort of
forgotten that the intrinsic control systems had their own outputs
which
were used to regulate biochemical or vegetative variables just as
the
hierarchical systems have motor outputs to regulate perceptual variables
of
other kinds. So I drew the reorganizing system as a homeostatic
control
system the ONLY output of which was the reorganizing output. I simply
forgot
that there would be another kind of output which is the normal action
that a
homeostatic control system uses to control the variables in the life
support
systems.
BH : Again it sounds very strange “homeostatic control system”.
But do I see
better words in your text for that : “intrinsic control system”
?
BP earlier : Check out Fig. 14.1 in B:CP (Page 188 in first edition, 191
in second: the one in the new edition was a redrawing by Dag Forsell, a
great
improvement). You’ll see the reorganizing system has an input function,
a
perceptual signal, a comparator with a reference signal coming from
a
genetic source, and an error signal. The error signal is converted
into
“organization-altering effects” which enter the neural
hierarchy – but
there are no outputs driven by the error signal that return directly
to
“intrinsic state”. So this figure simply ignores the
homeostatic control
systems which are complete in themselves!
BH : We could say, that this part is now adjusted more or less to
physiological facts. That was my proposition in our private
conversation.
Thank you for accepting it and putting it on CSGnet without my knowledge.
It
will be much easier now to lecture PCT and cope with Maturana,
biologist,
physiologist and even psychologist.
Bill_P earlier : If you draw some more output arrows so they go directly
from the output function into the place called “intrinsic
state” you will have a diagram of the built-in, inherited
homeostatic control systems. This is more obvious in Dag’s version of the
diagram in the second edition: the missing output signals are glaringly
obvious there. But it is hard to see something that isn’t
there.
B_H : This is really strange. I can’t imagine that you don’t remember
(from
june 2009), when I proposed exactly that arrow to adjust PCT theory as
much
as possible to main physiological principles. I really can’t believe
it,
that you are doing this, Bill.
OK, I think I found it: Date: Wed, 3 Jun 2009 23:34:27 +0200
========================================================================
BH: So if I understood right, we can put instead of genetic source also
DNA and RNA and we can “connect” operations of genetic source
with arrow to
intrinsic variables ? Could we call that genetic perceptual control (GPC)
?
=========================================================================
Actually, I think I ignored that because it was NOT what I meant. I
learned that from Mary: I learned from her to ignore wrong things people
say in order to give them a chance to see their own errors and correct
them. The genetic source (by which I meant DNA and RNA) was the source of
the reference signal going to the homeostatic system. You proposed to
draw it from the genetic source all the way down to the intrinsic
variables, bypassing the output functions. The correction I eventually
came up with was to draw an arrow from the output function of the
intrinsic or homeostatic control system directly to the Intrinsic State
as well as to the “reorganizing effects.” Look at Dag’s version
of Fig. 14-1: the arrow you proposed would go directly from Genetic
Source to Intrinsic State. Mine would go downward from Output Of
Reorganizing System to intrisic state.
Bill_P : Now we have a new
version of a basic control system.
B_H : O.K. I offered if you remember “Primary Control System”.
It’s maybe
more adjusted to Bruce’s synopsis, as your term “basic control
system”. And
the problem could be, that what you described is probably not "basic
control
system". That was further problem I wanted to disscuss with you, but
you
rushed out with all the “armory” that was momentally on your
mind. "Basic
control system" could be deeper and closer to DNA structure. So my
proposal
is to wait with “basic control system”.
Bill_P : Well, what have we here! All of a sudden the entire system
from
control systems at the system concept level to the lowliest
homeostatic
systems have the same organization! Furthermore, every control system
now
can have local effects because it has its own organization-altering
output.
We have a self-optimizing control system. Or will when we figure out
the
details.
B_H : This is theoratically maybe O.K. But I still think you are rushing.
I
think we need more time to adjust everything with other known
experimental
facts.
Fine, let’s get the facts.
Bill_P earlier : I can’t quite
see where this is going. Just what should these organization-altering
outputs do? Where should they go? Should they go
upward to higher systems? Downward to lower ones? Zip into the
reticular
formation and go in both directions?
B_H : This is a problem. I proposed you arrow from reorganizing system
to
“essential variables”, because I have troubles with explaining
behavioral
PCT, with solo controling internal “balance” with behavioral
acts. It looked
like as we are cold, and the only thing organism does, is going to take
a
coat. That’s I think, the last thing it does. So I have a goal. I
didn’t
want to be wrong in compare to other theories which tried to explain
behavior with other means ex. Maturana. And I think that I know where
"this
is going", otherwise I wouldn’t propose you an “extra
arrow”.
OK, I think you have steered me (indirectly) onto the right path (maybe
not the ultimately right one, but this one looks good right
now):
===========>>> HIERARCHICAL
REORGANIZATION <<<===========
The correct extra arrow, in my opinion, would go from the output function
of the homeostatic control system to the intrinsic variables. This is
easiest to see in Dag’s figure in Edition 2. The homeostatic system’s
output function would do what the homeostatic system does when it is too
cold (when the perceived temperature is less than the reference
temperature). It would cause vasoconstriction in peripheral blood
vessels, cause shivering to start, perhaps increase metabolism to burn
more fat or glucose, and so on. It would act on the intrinsic variables
to restore them to their reference states. None of this would cause
reorganization. These control systems are mostly in place from birth,
though some might result from reorganization at this level.
Possibly, at the same time, the behavioral systems would get a coat,
close a window, build a fire, move into sunshine, exercise, and so on
using existing behavioral control systems to detect and control the
sensory (neural) effect of being too cold. That would help to restore the
sensed temperatures at both levels to their reference states. That would
not involve reorganization, either, because the sensors are part of the
neural hierarchy and those control systems have probably already been
learned (except in a child).
If EITHER the homeostatic or the behavioral control systems experienced
too much error for too long, reorganization would start and would begin
to alter the organization of the local control systems. If the
homeostatic system could reorganize itself fast enough to keep the
temperature sensed by the hierharchy from being too low for too long,
that would be the end of it. But if the problem could not be corrected
well enough at the physiological level, the error in the behavioral
systems would get larger and last longer, and they would start to
reorganize themselves, system by system and level by level.
B_H : Well, it’s good to wait
and see what comes up. But whatever will be,
it will have to be adjusted with some known facts. The case you exposed
(or
the mistake you made and now you are trying to make it strait) would
be
sooner “counter-acted”, if you would read some of your students
or read some
old physiological (not anatomical) books in your time. Some facts you
came
up with, are 100 or more years old.
I learned about them more than 50 years ago (I was 32 years old then).
The idea of the “intrinsic systems” was modeled after Cannon’s
“homeostasis” as well as Ashby’s “homeostat.”
Gary Cziko (Things We Do) : We
must therefore seek the true foundation of
animal physics and chemistry in the physical-chemical properties of
the
inner environment. The life of an organism
is simply the result of all its innermost workings. All of the vital
mechanisms,however varied they may be, have always but one goal, to
maintain
the uniformity of the conditions of life in the internal
environment.
Claude Bernard (1878; quoted in Rahn 1979, p. 179).
I think Claude Berhard was mostly right, but he knew nothing of control
systems, or what it means to say that a system “has a goal”. He
didn’t realize that the uniformity of the conditions of life was not
maintained perfectly, but in the manner of a negative feedback control
system. He didn’t realize what Mrosovski wrote about, that the reference
levels or set points for these homeostatic control systems are not
constant, but can vary with different kinds of activity. When you’re ill,
the set point for body temperature rises, and the body control system
will resist disturbances of the new body temperature, either upward or
downward.
I also don’t understand why you
invited only Yi Li ? Other PCT members
aren’t good enough ?
Yu Li, working with Warren Mansell in England, is constructing a program
for simulating a hierarchy of control systems, and has lately been
working on a reorganizing system for this model. My remarks about Yu Li
were in response to a query about how he could think of the reorganizing
system. You can see that my answer is changing!
Bill_P : Remember that the ideas
that came up while writing this post are
the result of reorganization, or in other words, random. I’m sure I
have
weeded them out a lot before writing about them, but a lot more judgment
and
selection has to take place. I really wish we had experimental ways
to
measure reorganization; pure reasoning isn’t enough. Hmm, I’m going to
have
to go back and reread Kant.
B_H : Reorganizations comes and goes
with help of other people or
without
I
think you don’t need to re-read Kant. I would advise our PCT writers
like
Bruce Abbott and Gary Chico and mybe others whom I don’t know. There
are
many of these theoretical backgrounds in their writings
You maybe
just
didin’t see it, or you didn’t want to see it. That’s how PCT systems work
in
real world. People usually see only themselves. It’s logically. They
control
their internal environment their feelings, their thoughts, their
focused
attention, not others, aren’t they ? And they try to control also
their
external environment ? With fascinating other people ?
Reorganization is entirely internal and happens without regard to other
people. If I suggest an interesting new idea to you and describe it to
you or show it to you in a demonstration, it will have no effect at all
on you if you don’t reorganize. It will start to have an effect when you
reorganize enough to understand it and see its implications, and when you
alter your perceptions enough to fit it into your current organization. I
cannot do that part for you. Yes, other people can give you a starting
point. But you have to do the rest yourself, and what you end up with is
not the same as the idea that started the process.
Gary Czico : "Bernard came
to understand that the function of physiological
processes was to regulate or control the internal environment
(milieu
intérieur) of the organism"
Bruce Abbott : "Although at any given moment a tremendous number
of
physiological quantities is being automatically regulated through
nonbehavioral (purely physiological) means, the regulatory mechanisms
by
themselves are not capable of countering all the sources of
potential
disturbance to the intrinsic variables".
Yes, and those have been the basic ideas behind the reorganizing system
for a long time. This is from Making Sense of Behavior, page 47:
![Emacs!]()
Best,
Bill P.
?