Meno Paradox (was Re: Example)

[From Rick Marken (980413.1430)]

Bruce Gregory (980413.1617 EDT)

My point is that the book Bill read must have disturbed a
higher order perception "If this guy is right that I am a
jerk." .... The output of this higher order system would then
reset the reference levels for lower level perceptions that
allowed Bill to stop smoking...Make sense?

I sounds to me like you are describing hierarchical control, not
reorganization. Your description implies that control of the
perception of smoking is available as a means of controlling the
higher order perception of one's jerkiness. There is no reorganization
involved here; I can control the perception of my jerkiness (keep it
at 0) by controlling my perception of smoking (keeping it at "not").

No that's impossible, since reorganization is presumed to be
random.

The output of the reorganization process is assumed to be random
because there is no way for the reorganization process to know
_how_ to change the hierarchy in order to make things better; so
there is no _systematic_ way to change the hierarchy in order to
control the perceptions (of the hierarchy) that the reorganization
system controls. This is basically the "Meno Paradox" which was
nicely described by Hugh Petrie (I think it's in Petrie, Hugh G.
(1981). The dilemma of inquiry and learning. Chicago: University
of Chicago Press; is that right Hugh?). But the process itself is
not random; by making the rate of random change a function of error
in a closed loop process, the reorganization system controls a
perception (of an intrinsic variable) rather effectively. The
"Random Walk Chemotaxis" paper in "Mind Readings" describes the
"biased random walk" control process that is presumed to be used
by the reorganization system.

It seems to me that what must happen is that a higher level
perception must be disturbed sufficiently strongly that
reorganization is the only way for it to restore control. This
might be what has to happen whenever learning takes place.
What thinkest thou?

I don't think error in a higher level system has any special
significance for reorganization unless there is no error at
the lower level. I think that in addictions there is ususally
plenty of error at the lower level due to conflict -- there is
no need for a disturbance to a higher level system to start
reorganizaton.

I don't think the book Bill read was a disturbance that started
reorganization; I think it just allowed him to gain a perspective
on an existing conflict (that was already creating error) that
allowed him to see an acceptable solution (ptting up with the
pain of craving for a _finite_ time).

Best

Rick

···

--
Richard S. Marken Phone or Fax: 310 474-0313
Life Learning Associates e-mail: rmarken@earthlink.net
http://home.earthlink.net/~rmarken

[From Rick Marken (980413.2230)]

Me:

I sounds to me like you are describing hierarchical control, not
reorganization.

Bruce Gregory (980413.2113 EDT) --

Yes, it does sound that way now that you mention it. Apparently
the system was controlling a perception that it is not a jerk...

I don't think quitting smoking is an example of hierarhcical
control. If it were, then changing the reference for amount of
smoking from "a pack a day" to "none" in order to control a
perception like "jerkiness" would be no more difficult than changing
the position of your umbrella from "at your side: to "over your
head" to control the perception of getting wet.

It is difficult to stop an addictive behavior (like smoking)
because there is a conflict; higher level systems cannot
vary the reference for the addictive behavior as the means of
controlling higher level perceptions because of this conflict.
If a higher level system _does_ try to vary the lower the
reference for smoking (to "no smoking") this will disturb the
perception controlled by the nicotine control system. The nicotine
control system also uses smoking as the means of controlling
its perception. So the nicotine control system will try to
increase the reference for smoking. So now we have two systems
working against each other, trying to move the reference for
smoking to two different levels. This conflict cannot be solved by
the hierarchy itself; the conflict is built into the hierarchy
(see my spreadsheet hierarchy model). Something "outside of" the
hierarchy has to change the hierarchy. A change in the hierarchy
is called reorganization. So changing the hierarchy so that the
reference for smoking is permenently zero requires reorganization.

Bruce Abbott (980413.1935 EST)--

Where in HPCT do I find "gain a perspective" and "see an
acceptable solution"?

Once you understand how the HPCT model works and how it maps
into your own behavior as well as that of organisms you observe
then you can see what is not yet included in the model. The
model does not explain how consciousness enters the hierarchy
and allows it to change; but the model does show that something
"outside" (not part of) the hierarchy must do the changing
because the hierarchy has no way to change itself (its own
organization). All the hierarchy can do is change (vary) lower
level references (or outputs at the lowest level) as the means
of controlling it's input perceptual signals.

Speculations about the relationship between consciousness and
the HPCT model can be found in B:CP (p. 197 - 201). On p. 201
Powers says "If there is anything on which most psychotherapists
would agree, I think it would be the principle that change
demands consciousness from the _point of view_ that needs
changing". When I said "gain a perspective" I meant the same
thing Bill meant when he discussed "point of view". Another
nice discussion of this "point of view" notion is found in
the chapter on "An Experiment With Levels" in LCS II (p. 41).

I suggest a careful study of my speadsheet hierarchy and a
serious attempt to see how this model maps to normal, everyday
controlling before trying to understand how consciousness might
fit into the system. I also think we will start getting a better
idea of the kind of phenomena an HPCT model of consciousness
must handle as people like Tim Carey get more and more experience
with the method of levels.

Best

Rick

···

--

Richard S. Marken Phone or Fax: 310 474-0313
Life Learning Associates e-mail: rmarken@earthlink.net
http://home.earthlink.net/~rmarken/

[From Bruce Gregory 9980414.1405 EDT)]

Rick Marken (980413.2230)

Me:

>I sounds to me like you are describing hierarchical control, not
>reorganization.

Bruce Gregory (980413.2113 EDT) --

> Yes, it does sound that way now that you mention it. Apparently
> the system was controlling a perception that it is not a jerk...

I don't think quitting smoking is an example of hierarchical
control. If it were, then changing the reference for amount of
smoking from "a pack a day" to "none" in order to control a
perception like "jerkiness" would be no more difficult than changing
the position of your umbrella from "at your side: to "over your
head" to control the perception of getting wet.

What may be involved here is control at the program level. With my usual
knack for hitting on a non-controversial name, I would call this program
"What series of perceptions do I need to control to make X happen?" If such
a program is possible, it would be very valuable and might even be
hard-wired. If this program fails to arrive at a solution, you are left
where you started until new perceptions are available and the system runs
the program again. The existence of such a program might explain how
formerly impossible outcomes become possible. In the hypothetical "Bill"
example reading the book provides these new perceptions.

BO