Misc Replies

[Marc_Abrams1]

Blank
From [Marc Abrams (2004.02.17.1100)]

···

Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2004 10:51:07 -0800
From: Richard Marken marken@MINDREADINGS.COM
Subject: Misc. Replies

[From Rick Marken (2004.02.16.1045)]

Marc Abrams (2004.02.12.0935)

and if you think Marken and Powers did not drive Ford and Bourbon
away, why not just ask them.

I may have driven Ed Ford away. But it wasn’t intentional (I like Ed) and I
didn’t do it by personal attacks. The only possible “attacking” I did was
criticism of his religion and his program.

Hmmmm. You did not attack him ‘personally’, but you did attack his religion and his program? What planet are you currently on? Are you really serious here?

I think my comments about Catholicism were tougher on him than my comments about his program. But I
saw Ed at meetings after he left CSGNet (to form his own discussion group
regarding RTP) and I thought our relationship was quite friendly. So I think
the “Rick drove Ed off the net” idea is mythology that developed in retrospect.

Really? A myth? How much money you got? I’ll call up Ed today (I haven’t spoken to Ed in more than 5 years) and see if he would come to a lunch with you. You are delusional.

Tom left CSGNet a year or more before the “coercion” and “I see you have
chosen” debates occurred. So it was impossible for me to have driven Tom
from CSGNet because he wasn’t there.

It seems your “I have chosen not read this properly…” has come up and bit you in the ass again. I said Bill Powers was largely responsible for Tom’s position.

I hope he will return soon to doing work on PCT.

Not a chance. Not as long as Bill refuses to kiss and make up with Tom. He can if he wants to. Isn’t that sad?

Rick leading
the charge and Powers remaining silent on the sidelines or,deferring to
Rick’s ranting non arguments instead of Bourbon’s data.

Neither Tom nor Ed was on CSGNet when the “I see you have chosen” debate
occurred. The debate was not BS but a perfectly reasonable discussion about
a phrase that Bill and I felt …

Hmmm, “Bill and I”. So now you are co-authors of the theory? Do you have a mind of your own? Do you ever attempt to use it in any original or thoughtful way?

The ‘debate’ was not a reasonable discussion. The RTP people (Tom Bourbon collected and analyzed it) offered DATA to back up his point on the EMPIRICAL question. Do you know what EMPIRICAL means Rick? You don’t often deal in it, so I just want to make sure that you understand you were arguing theory (apples) and the RTP people were talking peaches (Empirical observation). Now since you knew absolutely NOTHING about the empirical data, how do come off arguing against it? Do you really believe ‘theory’ takes precedent over empirical observation? Do you think Tom Bourbon was not qualified to ‘understand’ the data he collected in PCT terms?

had no place in a program that is presumably based on PCT…

What a myth. All behavior is ‘based’ on PCT. That’s like saying human language is ‘based’ on talking. What’s the news?

and that aims to teach kids to take responsibility for their
own actions. The RTP literature recommended the use of the “I see you have
chosen” phrase to imply that the disruptive student, not the teacher, was
responsible for choosing that the student leave the room.

Yes Rick, and that is the way the world actually works. Lets remember one thing here. Control systems will try to reduce and eliminate error as quickly as possible, one way to do that is to be manipulative. The “I see you have…” is manipulative. But it also works like hell. When I’m trying to reduce crazyness in the classroom, I want to restore order AS SOON as possible. There is no quicker way outside of tossing the kid out the window. So you can stand on your high moral; ground and say the kid really doesn’t have a ‘choice’. I would counter that and say, does the kid actually deserve to have that choice. Of course you HAD the DATA to back up your higher moral position as being EQUALLY effective in stopping the disruptions right?

A few final thoughts: I find it very ironic, that both you and Bill actually think that every problem on CSGnet and every person who left CSGnet was the result of either the other person ‘not getting it’ or problems they caused. You and Bill never had anything to do with anyone’s leaving and it was always the other guys fault and PCT has not been ‘accepted’ because everyone in the world is conspiring against Bill Powers. I would ask you to look in the mirror Rick but everytime you do you see something that doesn’t really exist, so I’ll refrain from asking.

Have a nice day.

Marc

[R_Marken]

[From Rick Marken (980407.2120)]

Me:

I see no PC in your discussion of PCT; only T.

Jeff Vancouver (980407.1536 EST) --

That is not a fact, it is your opinion.

Well, then could you please point out where, in any of the papers
you sent me, you discuss control, controlled variables and/or
testing for controlled variables, using whatever language you
used to describe them.

I will see about adding more of your vocabulary

If you can talk about control, controlled perceptual variables
and the test for controlled variables without "using my vocabulary"
that's OK with me. I would just like to see an example of how you
discuss, say, controlled perceptual variables without talking about
controlled perceptual variables?

But while we are on the topic of opinions. Your post seems
clearly "in my face."

Then what I said was a disturbance to some perception you were
controlling; what you experienced is what is to be expected in
a normally functioning perceptual control system.

Bruce Gregory (980407.1655 EDT) --

The good news is that Isaac and I performed an experiment in
Harvard Square this afternoon. Isaac reported that he was
definitely able to observe "calling forth."

You can also observe "responding to" and "selected by" in
several of my PCT demos. But when you strap on your PCT
goggles you can see that it's always _control of input_.

We know that you can observe "calling forth" in many behavioral
situations; behaviorism (and all it's variants, including
cognitivism) was not made up out of whole cloth; it looks
like stimuli "call forth" responses. But PCT shows that this
appearance is _an illusion_; it's not what is happening. What
_is_ happening (and can be seen clearly when you know what
to look for) is that a perceptual variable is being protected
from the influence of disturbance; behavior is the control of
perception.

Bruce Gregory (80407.1722 EDT)

Everything I know about MOL suggests that it shifts that
BPCT element "attention". This is the basis for my conjecture
that changing what you perceive is a crucial step in reducing
conflict and increasing the domain over which you exercise
control.

The shift in attention that occurs in MOL is not really a
change in what you perceive. Remember, in PCT a perception is
the existence of a neural signal in an afferent neural pathway.
The MOL shift of attention doesn't change this kind of perception;
it just changes the perceptual signal at which awareness (whatever
_that_ is) is directed.

It's like the change from being aware of your perception of what
I am saying to being aware of your perception of the words I am
using to say it; or from being aware of your perception of the
computer screen to being aware of your perception of the pressure
on your butt (if you are seated).

The perceptual signals are always there; what changes is which
of these perceptual signals becomes the object of awareness (you
suddenly become aware of the Rachmaninoff playing in the background)
and which disappear from awareness (the pressure on the butt
disappears from consciousness -- oops, it popped back when I
said that;-)).

The MOL is aimed at changing awareness so that it is directed
at "problem" controlled perceptions; it is not aimed at changing
perceptions; it is aimed at becoming aware of the perceptions
that might have to be changed, controlled in new ways or no longer
controlled at all (depending on what works in the contect of your
perceptual control hierarchy).

Fred Nickols (980407.1656 EDT)

Your comments above suggest to me you might study economics as
well as PCT.

I have studied some economics. The only economic analysis that
ever made any sense to me was one done by (who else?) Bill
Powers' father, Treval C. Powers. The analysis is in a book
called "Leakage" which can be ordered through www.amazon.com.
I highly recommend it.

They also suggest you might have it in for business people, but
let's set that aside for now -- it smacks of "sour grapes."

I don't have it in for business people. I just don't think of
them as being of any more worth to the production process than
anyone else -- workers, managers, trainers, etc.

You sure as heck live in a different world than I do.

I bet they are very similar worlds. My references for how I want that
world to be are probably somewhat different than yours, though.

Best

Rick

···

--

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

[Bruce_Gregory]

[From Bruce Gregory (980408.1026 EDT)]

Rick Marken (980407.2120)

Bruce Gregory (980407.1655 EDT) --

> The good news is that Isaac and I performed an experiment in
> Harvard Square this afternoon. Isaac reported that he was
> definitely able to observe "calling forth."

You can also observe "responding to" and "selected by" in
several of my PCT demos. But when you strap on your PCT
goggles you can see that it's always _control of input_.

Convincing you that I know this is not easy. How can I do a
better job?

We know that you can observe "calling forth" in many behavioral
situations; behaviorism (and all it's variants, including
cognitivism) was not made up out of whole cloth; it looks
like stimuli "call forth" responses. But PCT shows that this
appearance is _an illusion_; it's not what is happening. What
_is_ happening (and can be seen clearly when you know what
to look for) is that a perceptual variable is being protected
from the influence of disturbance; behavior is the control of
perception.

Can we all agree on this? Or should I start and end every post
with this statement?

Bruce Gregory (80407.1722 EDT)

> Everything I know about MOL suggests that it shifts that
> BPCT element "attention". This is the basis for my conjecture
> that changing what you perceive is a crucial step in reducing
> conflict and increasing the domain over which you exercise
> control.

The shift in attention that occurs in MOL is not really a
change in what you perceive. Remember, in PCT a perception is
the existence of a neural signal in an afferent neural pathway.
The MOL shift of attention doesn't change this kind of perception;
it just changes the perceptual signal at which awareness (whatever
_that_ is) is directed.

This may be the cause of confusion. It is EXACTLY the reason I
use the word attention. Our attention involves the perceptual
signals that we are aware of. Further, as Bill notes, we can
"somehow ignore" some of the things we are aware of. So the
things we "attend to" are a subset of the things we "are
aware of", which in turn are a subset of our perceptions. How
can I say this in such a way that it does not disturb the
perception you are protecting that there is one and only one
way to talk about PCT?

It's like the change from being aware of your perception of what
I am saying to being aware of your perception of the words I am
using to say it; or from being aware of your perception of the
computer screen to being aware of your perception of the pressure
on your butt (if you are seated).

Quite so.

The perceptual signals are always there; what changes is which
of these perceptual signals becomes the object of awareness (you
suddenly become aware of the Rachmaninoff playing in the background)
and which disappear from awareness (the pressure on the butt
disappears from consciousness -- oops, it popped back when I
said that;-)).

Yes! Yes! Complete agreement so far.

The MOL is aimed at changing awareness so that it is directed
at "problem" controlled perceptions; it is not aimed at changing
perceptions; it is aimed at becoming aware of the perceptions
that might have to be changed, controlled in new ways or no longer
controlled at all (depending on what works in the contect of your
perceptual control hierarchy).

Fine. Can I get away with saying that the MOL involves changing
what you attend to, or is this too great a disturbance to the
perception you are protecting?

to Fred Nickols (980407.1656 EDT)

I bet they are very similar worlds. My references for how I want that
world to be are probably somewhat different than yours, though.

This is another disturbance to perceptions you are defending. It
is perfectly reasonable to say that people live in very
different worlds based on the ways their perceptions are
organized. Many people understand the statement "Jesse Helms
and I live in very different worlds" whereas they draw a blank
on or shrug off "Jesse Helmes and I live in the same world but
we have different reference levels for our perceptions." _We_
know that these statements are equivalent, but not everyone
knows this.

Bruce the Obscure

[Bill_Powers1]

[From Bill Powers (980408.1212 MST)]

Bruce Gregory (980408.1026 EDT)--

Gonna set your clock forward pretty soon ( or at least change "DT" to "ST")?

> changing what you perceive is a crucial step in reducing
> conflict and increasing the domain over which you exercise
> control.

Are you aware of the ambiguity in the phrase "changing what you perceive?"
It can mean (1) "changing from perceiving one set of inputs to perceiving a
different set of inputs," or (2) "perceiving the same inputs, but giving them
a new interpretation." It can also mean (3) "acting on the world to change
the state of something that is being perceived, without changing to a new
perceptual function or a new origin of the perceptions."

Examples:

(1) You look at a license plate and perceive it as "rectangular." Then you
change your direction of looking and perceive a piece of paper as also
rectangular. You are changing what you're perceiving in the sense of
changing which object you're looking at. You're changing the "what" from a
license plate to a piece of paper by redirecting your gaze.

(2) You look at a piece of paper and see it as a rectangle. Then you change
the perceptual interpretation so you are now seeing the same piece of paper
as a square with one dimension too long. You are still looking at the same
thing, unchanged, but "what you perceive" as a result is different.

(3) You see a rectangular piece of paper. You then use scissors to trim off
one side until the proportions of the sides match the proportions you want
to see (maybe the "golden ratio"). This is "changing what you perceive" by
altering the world and thus the perceived ratio of the sides.

These are three completely different meanings of the phrase "change what
you perceive." Any of the three can be used to reduce conflicts. Which one
are you talking about?

Best,

Bill P.

[Bruce_Gregory]

[From Bruce Gregory (980408.1503 EDT (i think!))]

Bill Powers (980408.1212 MST)

Bruce Gregory (980408.1026 EDT)--

Gonna set your clock forward pretty soon ( or at least change "DT" to

"ST")?

> changing what you perceive is a crucial step in reducing
> conflict and increasing the domain over which you exercise
> control.

Are you aware of the ambiguity in the phrase "changing what you perceive?"
It can mean (1) "changing from perceiving one set of inputs to perceiving a
different set of inputs," or (2) "perceiving the same inputs, but giving

them

a new interpretation." It can also mean (3) "acting on the world to change
the state of something that is being perceived, without changing to a new
perceptual function or a new origin of the perceptions."

No, I wasn't aware. Thanks for pointing it out. It might be _very_
confusing.

Examples:

(1) You look at a license plate and perceive it as "rectangular." Then you
change your direction of looking and perceive a piece of paper as also
rectangular. You are changing what you're perceiving in the sense of
changing which object you're looking at. You're changing the "what" from a
license plate to a piece of paper by redirecting your gaze.

Yes, this is part of what I had in mind.

(2) You look at a piece of paper and see it as a rectangle. Then you change
the perceptual interpretation so you are now seeing the same piece of paper
as a square with one dimension too long. You are still looking at the same
thing, unchanged, but "what you perceive" as a result is different.

Yes, this the other part.

(3) You see a rectangular piece of paper. You then use scissors to trim off
one side until the proportions of the sides match the proportions you want
to see (maybe the "golden ratio"). This is "changing what you perceive" by
altering the world and thus the perceived ratio of the sides.

I _really_ like this one! A very proactive approach!

These are three completely different meanings of the phrase "change what
you perceive." Any of the three can be used to reduce conflicts. Which one
are you talking about?

I started out thinking in terms of (2) with the added complication that
"what you perceive" could be an actual restructuring of the perceptual
input. This is what I was struggling with when I used the term "shows up". A
Necker cube can "show up" in two different ways. There may be reorganization
going on, but that seems unlikely. Isaac pointed out to me that you may be
shifting your attention so that the two "showings up" are linked to two
different focuses of attention. This seems quite likely to me. It also links
(2) back to (1), i.e., you are actually attending to two different things. I
now think this is the simplest interpretation and I prefer it until I find
some evidence to contradict it.

I can readily restate what I said above in the following way, "changing what
you attend to is a crucial step..."
I hope this is less ambiguous.

Bruce the Obscure

[Bill_Powers1]

[From Bill Powers (980408.1456 MST)]

Bruce Gregory (980408.1503 EDT (i think!))--

Uh uh. Not Eastern Daylight Time. What you want is Eastern Standard Time,
EST. Have you noticed everybody looking at you as if you're getting to work
an hour late?

(3) You see a rectangular piece of paper. You then use scissors to trim off
one side until the proportions of the sides match the proportions you want
to see (maybe the "golden ratio"). This is "changing what you perceive" by
altering the world and thus the perceived ratio of the sides.

I _really_ like this one! A very proactive approach!

The other name for (3) is "perceptual control".
.....................
I can readily restate what I said above in the following way, "changing what
you attend to is a crucial step..."

Is that any less ambiguous? Try again.

Best,

Bill P.

[Bruce_Gregory]

[From Bruce Gregory (980408.1800 EDT!!!!!!!!!!)]

Bill Powers (980408.1456 MST)

Bruce Gregory (980408.1503 EDT (i think!))--

Uh uh. Not Eastern Daylight Time. What you want is Eastern Standard Time,
EST. Have you noticed everybody looking at you as if you're
getting to work
an hour late?

I've finally located the source of all our misunderstandings! We folks out
here set our clocks forward one hour on Sunday 5 April. We call this ritual,
going on Eastern Daylight Savings time. It is obviously not practiced by you
heathen on Mountain time. You folks are wrong! We folks are right! WE WILL
NEVER GIVE IN!

Bruce the Obstinate

[Bill_Powers1]

[From Bill Powers (980408.1957 MDT)]

[From Bruce Gregory (980408.1800 EDT!!!!!!!!!!)]

A most interesting phenomenon. I got myself 180 degrees from the truth, and
from that point of view everyone else looked completely wrong. I never
checked my own time-data stamp.

Why is it that all the great lessons of life are so humiliating? Is the end
near?

Best,

Bill P.

[bnhpct]

[From Bruce Nevin (980409.0937 EDT)]

FWIW the savings/standard controversy had me waffling in confusion too. It
feels good to be humorous about our feelings of humiliation, accesses our
native humility. When we're humble we can't be humiliated. But I still come
'round with stuff I get stuck in unless I remember to laugh at (with)
myself about it.

There follows a small gem a` propos of several threads, and especially

Bill Powers (980408.1420 MST)--

When [the Observer is] not doing that,
either, you're experiencing awareness without content or desire.

Might better be titled In Praise of Mindfulness but I'm not the translater.

  BN

···

-=+=-=+=-=+=-=+=-=+=-=+=-=+=-=+=-=+=-=+=-=+=-=+=-=+=-=+=-=+=-=+=-=+=-=+=-

In Praise of Mind

The Third Chinese Patriarch of Zen

The Great Way is not difficult for those who have no preferences. When love
and hate are both absent, everything becomes clear and undisguised. Make
the smallest distinction, however, and heaven and earth are set infinitely
apart.

If you wish to see the truth, then hold no opinions for or against
anything. To set up what you like against what you dislike is the disease
of the mind. When the deep meaning of things is not understood, the mind's
essential peace is disturbed to no avail.

The Way is perfect, like vast space where nothing is lacking and nothing is
in excess. Indeed, it is due to our choosing to accept or reject that we do
not see the true nature of things.

Live neither in the entanglements of outer things, nor in inner feelings of
emptiness. Be serene in the oneness of things, and such erroneous views
will disappear by themselves.

When you try to stop activity to achieve passivity, your very effort fills
you with activity. As long as you remain in one extreme or the other, you
will never know oneness. Those who do not live in the Single Way fail in
both activity and passivity, assertion and denial. To deny the reality of
things is to miss their reality; to assert the emptiness of things is to
miss their reality.

The more you talk and think about it, the further astray you wander from
the truth. Stop talking and thinking, and there is nothing that you will
not be able to know.

To return to the root is to find the meaning, but to pursue appearances is
to miss the source. At the moment of inner enlightenment there is going
beyond appearances and emptiness.

The changes that appear to occur in the empty world we call real only
because of our ignorance. Do not search for the truth, only cease to
cherish opinions.

Do not remain in the dualistic state. Avoid such pursuits carefully. If
there is even a trace of this and that, of right and wrong, the
mind-essence will be lost in confusion. Although all dualities come from
the One, do not be attached even to this One.

When the mind exists undisturbed in the Way, nothing in the world can
offend; and when a thing can no longer offend, it ceases to exist in the
old way. When no discriminating thoughts arise, the old mind ceases to
exist. When thought-objects vanish, the thinking subject vanishes, as when
the mind vanishes objects vanish.

Things are objects because of the subject, mind; the mind (subject) is such
because of things (object). Understand the relativity of these two, and the
basic reality: the unity of emptiness. In this emptiness, the two are
indistinguishable, and each contains in itself the whole world. If you do
not discriminate between coarse and fine, you will not be tempted to
prejudice and opinion.

To live in the Great Way is neither easy nor difficult, but those with
limited views are fearful and irresolute. The faster they hurry, the slower
they go. And clinging (attachment) cannot be limited. Even to be attached
to the idea of enlightenment is to go astray. Just let things be in their
own way, and there will be neither coming nor going.

Obey the nature of things, your own nature, and you will walk freely and
undisturbed. When thought is in bondage, the truth is hidden, for
everything is murky and unclear. And the burdensome practice of judging
brings annoyance and weariness. What benefit can be derived from
distinctions and separations? If you wish to move in the One Way, do not
dislike even the world of senses and ideas. Indeed, to accept them fully is
identical with true enlightenment. The wise man strives to no goals, but
the foolish man fetters himself. There is one dharma, not many.
Distinctions arise from the clinging needs of the ignorant. To seek Mind
with the discriminating mind is the greatest of all mistakes.

Rest and unrest derive from illusion. With enlightenment there is no liking
and disliking. All dualities come from ignorant inference. They are like
dreams, or flowers in air: foolish to try to grasp them! Gain and loss,
right and wrong--such thoughts must finally be abolished, at once!

If the eye never sleeps, all dreams will naturally cease. If the mind makes
no discriminations, the ten thousand things are as they are: of single
essence. To understand the mystery of this one essence is to be released
from all entanglements. When all things are seen equally, the timeless
self-essence is reached.

No comparisons or analogies are possible in this causeless, relationless
state. Consider movement stationary, and the stationary in motion: both
movement and rest disappear. When such dualities cease to exist, oneness
itself cannot exist.

To this ultimate finality, no law or description applies. For the unified
mind, in accord with the Way, all self-centered striving ceases, doubts and
irresolution vanish, and life in true faith is possible. With a single
stroke we are freed from bondage. Nothing clings to us, and we hold to
nothing. All is empty, clear, self-illuminating, with no exertion of the
mind's power. Here thought, feeling, knowledge, and imagination are of no
value. In this world of suchness, there is neither self, nor other than
self. To come directly into harmony with this Reality, just simply say,
when doubts arise, "not two." In this "not two," nothing is separate,
nothing is excluded. No matter when or where, enlightenment means entering
this truth. And this truth is beyond extension or diminution in time or
space. In it, a single thought is ten thousand years. Emptiness here,
emptiness there, but the infinite universe stands always before your eyes.

Infinitely large, and infinitely small--no difference! For definitions have
vanished, and no boundaries are seen. So too with being and non-being.
Don't waste time in doubts and arguments that have nothing to do with this.

One thing, all things, move among and intermingle, without distinction. To
live in this realization is to be without anxiety about non-perfection. To
live in this faith is the road to non-duality, because the non-dual is one
with the trusting mind.

Words! The Way is beyond language, for in it there is no yesterday, no
tomorrow, no today.

[Bruce_Gregory]

[From Bruce Gregory (980409.1049 EDT)]

Bill Powers (980408.1456 MST)]

Me;

I can readily restate what I said above in the following way,
"changing what
you attend to is a crucial step..."

Thee:

Is that any less ambiguous? Try again.

Changing what you are aware that you are perceiving is a crucial step...

Bruce the Obscure

[Bruce_Gregory]

[From Bruce Gregory (980409.1325 EDT)]

Bruce Nevin (980409.0937 EDT)]

It is great to discover another admirer of the Third Patriarch.

Bruce the Obscure

[Bill_Powers1]

[From Bill Powers (980409.1343 MDT)]

Bruce Nevin (980409.0937 EDT)--

In Praise of Mind

The Third Chinese Patriarch of Zen

The Great Way is not difficult for those who have no preferences. When love
and hate are both absent, everything becomes clear and undisguised. Make
the smallest distinction, however, and heaven and earth are set infinitely
apart.

If you wish to see the truth, then hold no opinions for or against
anything. To set up what you like against what you dislike is the disease
of the mind. When the deep meaning of things is not understood, the mind's
essential peace is disturbed to no avail.

Pat III expresses many ideas that fit with PCT. Not entirely by accident,
of course; I had read similar things early in exploring PCT and found them
informative. It seems to me that he is talking about the conflict-free
state, not just about awareness. When you act without conflict, so there is
nothing acting against you, the action feels effortless; there is no
"trying", because "trying" is always an effort made against yourself.

I think I differ from the patriarch in the ultimate state of being I'm
seeking. What I seek is pretty much what I have, or in that neighborhood: a
life of enquiry, of putting things in order, of finding and communicating
understanding of natural processes. This is not the passive goalless state
of which Pat III speaks. I rather like making distinctions, and I find the
separation of the Observer from the Observed completely convincing (the
Patriarch does not, or says he doesn't). I live in the world, by choice.
But then I think that approach is honored also, in the Way.

Best,

Bill P.

[bnhpct]

[From Bruce Nevin (980409.1725 EDT)]

Bill Powers (980409.1343 MDT)--

I live in the world, by choice.
But then I think that approach is honored also, in the Way.

Yes. It's not a matter of turning down loop gain, or "stamping out desire"
(as those dear old Theosophists put it). You continue to control. Even
fiercely. But without attachment. Not getting your bowels all in an uproar
about it. It's that emotion-fed reverbration chamber of

perception->memory->imagination-+
              ^-----------------+

running parallel to the control loop (pardon the skeletal representation)

            > reference
            v
     +---->----------------------+
     > >
     > >
perception-->memory-->imagination-+ |
     > > >
     ><---------------------------+ |
     > > output
........................................
     > >
     > >
     +---------Environment<---------+

Could go on about self fulfilling prophesies, etc. ...

Goenka tells a story about his teacher, U Ba Khin I think it was, and a
student in a 30-day or 3-month course who was recalcitrant about doing the
work (and it is hard work). He went in to the student's cell -- they had
separate rooms for them in Burma, unlike western Mass. -- and chewed him
out, eyes popping, face turning red then purple with rage. Then he came out
and walked off with Goenka, laughing, not a trace of upset. "Did you see
how angry with him I was? I got really angry!"

One famous teacher was a farmer, people had to come to his farm and help
out with the chores if they wanted to work with him. Some get into being a
raja, temple guards and all, Muktananda comes to mind, and at a much more
crass level Rajneesh.

We expect our Great Teachers to be perfect embodiments. In the world of my
perceptions? Not likely! :->

Back to hauling wood and chopping water ...

  BN

[Bruce_Gregory]

[From Bruce Gregory (980409.1734 EDT)]

Bruce Nevin (980409.1725 EDT)]

We expect our Great Teachers to be perfect embodiments. In the world of my
perceptions? Not likely! :->

I feel certain that you intended to add "present company excluded, of
course."

Bruce the Obscure

[Bill_Powers1]

[From Bill Powers (980410.0338 MDT)]
Bruce Gregory (980409.1049 EDT) --

Me;

I can readily restate what I said above in the following way,
"changing what
you attend to is a crucial step..."

Thee:

Is that any less ambiguous? Try again.

Changing what you are aware that you are perceiving is a crucial step...

Still ambigous. What I am aware that I am perceiving is that computer
screen about 20 inches from my eyes. If I change "what I am aware of
perceiving," I can change that computer screen (say, turn off the power to
it), or I can change the perception of it without doing anything to the
monitor (Look at the smudges on it), or I can switch my awareness to some
other perception (attend to the mouse in peripheral vision, without moving
my eyes, or switch attention to the fact that this screen is too small to
see clearly).

These are three completely different processes, which ordinary language
does not easily distinguish. To make these distinctions clearly, you need a
technical language, like that of PCT.

Best,

Bill P.

[Bruce_Gregory]

[From Bruce Gregory (980410.0933 EDT)]

Bill Powers (980410.0338 MDT)]

Still ambiguous. What I am aware that I am perceiving is that computer
screen about 20 inches from my eyes. If I change "what I am aware of
perceiving," I can change that computer screen (say, turn off the power to
it), or I can change the perception of it without doing anything to the
monitor (Look at the smudges on it), or I can switch my awareness to some
other perception (attend to the mouse in peripheral vision, without moving
my eyes, or switch attention to the fact that this screen is too small to
see clearly).

"Switch your awareness to another perception." (Of course this is not really
a PCT statement, since awareness is not modeled.)

Bruce the Obscure

[Marken_Richard_S]

[From Rick Marken (950521.0030)]

Bill Powers (950519.1700 MDT) --

The stability factor works best for constant reference signals ...
Remember the problems with tuning the Mind Reading program.

Yes. But if there is a variable reference then RMS cannot be computed at
all unless you can get a good estimate of qi*. The stability factor gives a
comparative basis for evaluating quality of control when there is a variable
reference so I think it has its place in PCT research (heck, you invented
it;-) But, of course, the best thing would be to develop a method (like the
one you describe in Volitional Action) for monitoring the reference state of
the controlled variable.

Clark McPhail (950519) --

Me:

What your words say is 1) it is NOT very difficult nor is it impossible
to control the behavior of another living control system if you DO
know the reference signal(s) and 2) that living control systems control
their reference signals.

Clark:

That is not what I said. You twisted what I said. What I said is:

Powers's central point is that it is very difficult if not impossible to
control the behavior of another living control system without
knowing the reference signal(s) for which that system is controlling.
Even then such control is achieved only with great difficulty.

What was the twist? You are saying that it is impossible to control behavior
WITHOUT knowing the reference signals. This implies that WITH knowledge of
the reference signals, control of behavior is NOT impossible. Your final
sentence confirms this interpretation; you say that control of behavior is
possible, though only with great difficulty. PCT shows that control of
behavior is not possible AT ALL.

You quote Bill Powers as follows:

"If producing that behavior creates no inner conflicts, B will produce it,
and A will have "made" B behave as A wanted. " (B:CP, 1973:261)

Notice that "made" is in quotation marks. The quotation marks are essential
to the point of the sentence, which is that it _looks_ to A like B's behavior
has been controlled, but this appearance is an illusion; A has not really
_made_ B behave as A wanted. It just seems like it. The illusion becomes
apparent as soon as there is a disturbance, such as a change in B's goals.

I still don't understand how a control system can control for a reference
signal or how Garfinkle's research methods parallel The Test.

It is not impossible in the non-simulated world to suspect that it is
frequently the case that those mere mortals who are themselves
dependent upon others for the coin of the realm with which to
purchase food and shelter and clothing for themselves and for those
mates and offspring that depend on them, these mere mortals will do
what their employer calls upon them to do in exchange for a
paycheck. Sociologists call that a "power-dependency relationship".

Are you suggesting that the employer has some control over the "mere
mortal"? The term "power-dependency relationship" suggests to me that
sociologists are looking at the superficial aspects of this relationship from
a particular point of view and concluding that employers have "power" over
employees. If the sociologists tried looking at the situation from a control
theory perspective they might see that both the mere mortal and the employer
are successfully controlling many perceptual variables, but neither is
controlling a
perception of the behavior of the other because it is impossible to do that.

were the instructions in the exercise clear and precise and sufficient
for you to carry them out?

Yes. But I wouldn't worry so much about the precision of the written
instructions. People figure out what to do in these demos as you schmooze
with them in person (rubber bands in hand). I've done the demos successfully
with many different people using no written instructions at all.

Chuck Tucker (950519) --

I did take a shower w/o having to visually scan the soap in the soap
dish; I just reached my hand toward the dish and as ANTICIPATED
the soap was there and the distance between my hand and soap was
reduced to zero!!

My call for posts was a call for easy to demonstrate examples of control of
perception. What perceptions do you think you were controlling when you moved
your hand to the soap. What were the disturbances to those percpetions?
What were the actions that compensated for the disturbances? Suppose you had
turned around once or twice with your eyes closed and then reached for the
soap; do you think you would consistently end up reducing the distance
between hand and soap to zero? Try it (carefully) and then try it
again with your eyes open. Notice any difference?

BTW, is'nt Blind Tracking like your open --> close?

In a certain sense, yes. In the open-loop phase of this demo you do see the
cursor target relationship (so you are not really "blind") but your outputs
have no effect on what you see; so you are "blind" to what the actual results
your mouse movements would be if they did affect the cursor. The results of
this open-loop phase of the experiment are a pretty-good indication of what
behavior would look like if we spent much time controlling "blind" (open
loop).

Hank Folson (950518)--

Please delete,correct, improve, modify and extend these statements to
match your understanding of controlling via communication in >terms of PCT

All of your comments seem pretty good to me. Let me see if there's anything
that gives me serious heartburn.

Any outside attempt to influence us to improve our communication
techniques will be perceived as a disturbance

A VERY important observation! I agree completely.

the only way we will improve upon them [means of communication] is if we "go
up a level".

Reorganization is another way.

If a researcher perceives that by controlling to improve his
communication skills (which he is otherwise content with) he can
achieve his higher level goal of speeding up research work in his field
of interest which is heavily dependent on communication with other
researchers, he may work on improving his communication skills.

I don't see how someone can improve something that they are already content
with. Contentment can only mean that a perception is under control. If a
perception is under control, then improvement could only mean that it is
even MORE under control. If a person is controlling for a perception of
communicating at particular reference level (like "mean and rude") and he is
content with control of this perception, then improvement could only mean
that the person is getting even better at controlling the perception of being
mean and rude.

If a person is controlling the perception of communication as a means of
controlling another perceptions, like the number of people doing PCT
research, and this variable is not under control, then the only thing the
person can do (if he maintains the goal of having people do PCT research) is
reorganize, which might involve changing anything about the means used to
control the perception -- including abandoning efforts to communicate at all.
The controller can't know how to change the way he controls communication in
order to get another perception under control.

In fact, if someone were controlling for something like "the number of people
doing PCT research" he would be on a fool's errand because you can't control
control systems (potential PCT researchers would be control sustems
themselves). So there is unquestionably no way to control one's percpetion of
communication in a way that will imporve one's ability to control the number
of people who do PCT research. If people want to do PCT research, they will
do it.

Mark Abrams --

I got the "Action Science" book and have started reading it. I can see why
you think it is related to PCT. I will try to post a review of it tommorrow.

Best

Rick

[Bill_Leach1]

<[Bill Leach 950521.15:40 U.S. Eastern Time Zone]

[From Rick Marken (950521.0030)]

Hank:

Any outside attempt to influence us to improve our communication
techniques will be perceived as a disturbance

Rick:

A VERY important observation! I agree completely.

Am I missing something here: "... perceived as a disturbance ..."?

Is it not still true that the effects of disturbance upon a _controlled
perception_ are not perceived at all (through that perception)?

Is it not also true that the effects of a disturbance that overwhelms a
control system can be perceived but one has to recognize that the
relationship between the perception and the disturbance is not direct?

Thus, would it not be better to say that "any outside attempt to
influence us to improve our communication techniques" _may_ be perceived
and little else can be stated in general?

If a person, for example, perceives that someone is attempting to
"influence" them to make communications technique "improvements" then it
is possible 1) is just in agreement with an existing perception from
other sources and a) provides means for achieving better control for an
existing controlled perception or b) causes no change in existing
controlled perceptions, 2) is not in agreement with an existing
perception and a) is seperately perceived as valid with some control
action/reorganization occuring to correct the newly existing error or b)
is perceived to not be valid and is resisted (probably ignored).

Hank:

the only way we will improve upon them [means of communication] is if
we "go up a level".

Rick:

Reorganization is another way.

...and I believe that we have tentatively agreed that "parameter tuning"
is another possible way that does not necessarily involve reorganization.
Such parameter tuning could probably occur at any level but seems to
actually be observable at low levels.

Rick:

In fact, if someone were controlling for something like "the number of
people doing PCT research" he would be on a fool's errand because you
can't control control systems (potential PCT researchers would be
control sustems themselves). So there is unquestionably no way to
control one's percpetion of communication in a way that will imporve
one's ability to control the number of people who do PCT research. If
people want to do PCT research, they will do it.

While I think that this statement is true when taken absolutely literally
I also believe that there is a problem in the overall meaning here.

While it is certainly true that you can not control the actions of others
it is misleading if you also imply that you can not influence the actions
of others.

I perceive Hanks position as "The appearent attitude toward others as
practiced by acknowledged PCTers will have an influence upon the extent
of the participation in PCT research by others."

The reasons probably have nothing to do with PCT research (though are
obviously topic for such research). People do control perceptions
related to such vague concepts as "comfort". Again, most people probably
avoid interaction with people that make them "uncomfortable" unless such
interaction is required for the control of other perceptions.

Picking specifically upon you (since I personally perceive you to be a
very sincere, honest researcher without desire to cause hurt to others);
The means that you use to "correct" an error in someone else's
presentation does affect their perceptions.

You do not, of course, cause the perceptions (though in direct personal
interaction you can cause some perceptions to occur -- an I am
specifically NOT claiming that you are controlling the perceptions of
another only that you can influence that other person's environment which
is likely perceived in some, detailed specifics unknown to you, way).

You are also not causing perceptions produced through inference by that
other person either. However, you and that other person do have some
measure of understanding of social convention and thus while your ability
to predict in any exact way the perceptions of another with respect to
communications is close to nil, it is not absolutely zero.

My perception for your situation is that you have spent so much time and
effort "fighting" with people trying to "prove" that PCT "is just like
..." or that certain fundamental concepts of PCT are not important in an
exact sense that you tend yourself to immediately perceive that another
is NOT really interested in understanding PCT itself or refuses to even
attempt recognize the profound implications of PCT to understanding
behaviour.

The fact that this has and is so often true is also disasterous when
presumed for dealing with someone that genuinely is struggling to
understand the subject.

···

------------
I also suspect that Hank may be talking about the "massive" amount of
"talking past each other" that takes place here. Many threads have gone
on for days or even weeks where several people were likely not even
talking about the same points (and I certainly admit to "guilt" on this
one).

Some of us (I know that both Rick and I often do this), will quote an
excerpt from a post and discuss some aspect of that excerpt. The
discussion itself may well be completely "valid" but was complete "off
topic" as far as the original posting was concerned.

There is, as far as I am concerned, nothing really wrong with this except
that the original poster may "take offense" because of the assumption
that the commenter was implying a lack of understanding on the part of
the original poster.

In some cases the excerpt from the original post was indeed "sloppy" but
was so incidental to what the original poster was trying to discuss that
there was no intent to attempt to be more precise (usually because of a
perception that others would understand what was intended).

I am not going to pretend to a solution. Even my rather typically long
missives _always_ contain thoughts and expressions that would have to be
expanded upon to be complete and accurate to even my own understanding.
Every posting could run to many megabytes with not real exchange of ideas
occurring if every word and thought were defined to the maximum ability
of the posters (and still there would be missunderstanding).

I think that the best that we can do is to 1) assume that we will
misunderstand and will be misunderstood and that in the vast majority of
cases such is accidental 2) that others have no malice toward us.

-bill

[Human_Factors_Lab]

[From Rick Marken (920827.1000)

Martin Taylor (920826 14:45)

I said:

OK. There's the trivail truth.

Martin said:

Even when you acknowledge the
fundamental truth, its consequences and power are far from self-evident.

For sure. But Martin, you never answered my question; namely, what is the
deeper (non-trivial) truth revealed by dynamic analysis?? I really don't
understand what you mean. I know that control systems are dynamic and
that these dynamics are important to consider when analyzing and building
control systems. But can you give me a concrete example of what you
mean by a non-trivial truth. I kinda think it's non-trivial to realize that
1) behavior is just an observable side-effect of an organism's efforts control
various aspects of its own sensory experience relative to internally specified
reference levels and that 2) this means that the only way to understand
behavior (non-superficially and non-statistically) is to try to learn what
sensory variables the organism is controlling. These two trivial little
truths imply a hell of a big research program. What truths did you have in
mind? Concrete examples would help.

Martin says:

I'm afraid I don't see the paradox. What is the problem with controlled
agents themselves controlling others?

Bill answered this for me. I will just add one little thing. There is,
indeed, really no paradox involved, though it sounds like there is one when
it is stated as I stated it above (how do controlled agents control?). The
fact of the matter is that agents that control cannot be controlled -- and
efforts to control controlling agents are simply examples of conflict
between control systems.

Avery says:

Moving on to a more specific point, Bill's arm demo (the version I
have at least) has to assume that the visual system can track the
fingertip & the target, whereas a major aspect of Sonja is an
visual system that can to some extent actually do this (though he ducks
problems of early vision).

I don't understand this. The arm demo's visual system does track the
fingertip and target, doesn't it? What does Sonja do about target tracking?

Bill Powers says:

Avery, you are becoming the voice of reason on this net. Keep it up.
You will get us back on track.

Not if I can help it! (Just some unreasonable sarcasm).
You are a remarkably temperate and reasonable control system, Avery,
just like your Aunt Mary.

Bill to Martin RE: degrees of freedom.

I think we will all continue to be frustrated on this subject until we
come up with experiments that demonstrate this "absolute need."

Ah, the same unreasonable suggestion that I made.

Bill to Ed:

I put it to you that PCT and HPCT transcend political points of view, as
well as many others. Except for Rick. Yukayukayuk.

It's true, folks. I AM LEVEL 11.

Martin Taylor (920827 0020) answers Bill's suggestion that experiments
are needed to demonstrate the need for revision of the model based on
degrees of freedom considerations:

I doubt you could ever find a phenomenon that can be described by only
one organization.

True. But a collection of observations can usually only be explained just one
of the models. All I'm asking for is some data that would motivate the need
to revise the existing model (which handles many simple cases of control). I
would suggest a very simple experiment; just so I could get the idea of what
you are talking about. tI scould probably just be a simple extension of a
multidimensional tracking task (which we know the model can handle). Just
create a simple change in the experiment that produces consistent results that
pose a problem for the existing model.

There really isn't any experimental demonstration that I can think of,
because

If you really can't do an experiment that tests your proposed revision of the
model then I can't see that it's such an important revision; since the model
accounts for the phenomena we've observed so far I can't see revising the
model to help it explain a phenomenon that we will never be able to
observe.

Hasta luego

Rick

···

**************************************************************

Richard S. Marken USMail: 10459 Holman Ave
The Aerospace Corporation Los Angeles, CA 90024
E-mail: marken@aero.org
(310) 336-6214 (day)
(310) 474-0313 (evening)

[_Martin_Taylor]

[Martin Taylor 920827 14:00]
(Rick Marken 920827 10:00)

I'm lost. I don't understand what it is that Rick doesn't understand so I
can't answer his questions. Rick seems to be saying that there are no more
sensory degrees of freedom than motor degrees of freedom, and that all
ECSs can always be controlling. That, at least, is what I think is the case
in the models I have seen simulated or discussed. But it can't be true,
and I'm sure Rick knows it can't be true, any more than it can be true that
we behave in a strict S-R manner. So, since I believe Rick to be reasonable,
there must be some intent behind his questions that totally escapes me.

=============quotes follow.

All I'm asking for is some data that would motivate the need
to revise the existing model (which handles many simple cases of control). I
would suggest a very simple experiment; just so I could get the idea of what
you are talking about. tI scould probably just be a simple extension of a
multidimensional tracking task (which we know the model can handle). Just
create a simple change in the experiment that produces consistent results that
pose a problem for the existing model.

There really isn't any experimental demonstration that I can think of,
because

If you really can't do an experiment that tests your proposed revision of the
model then I can't see that it's such an important revision; since the model
accounts for the phenomena we've observed so far I can't see revising the
model to help it explain a phenomenon that we will never be able to
observe.

============a sort of response? follows:
Has the model accounted for all the phenomena of human life observed so far?
I thought that I mentioned a couple of phenomena that seem not to be covered
by the N-in N-out model: the flick of the eyes to an unexpected movement,
the turn of the head toward an unexpected noise. These seem to involve a
K-in N-out model, where K>>N. This seems crystal clear, and I don't suppose
that's where the problem lies.

All I am doing is simply pointing out a fact that must be true in the real
world (as opposed to the world of constructed models acting in trivial
environments). It's as much a fact as that disturbances sometimes affect
CEVs that correspond to percepts. The latter fact leads to PCT in general,
the df discrepancy leads to what I have called "alerting systems" within PCT.

Perhaps there's a misunderstanding about the difference between being able to
observe a phenomenon and being able to do experiments on it. Rick, is that
where the problem lies? Astronomers can observe but not experiment. They
can model their phenomena using the results of experiments done by physicists
and chemists. My claim was not that there are no observable phenomena
attributable to alerting systems, but that we couldn't undo evolution, and
wouldn't ever find an active living system without them; and if we constructed
a simulation, its construction would be whatever the designer decided. If it
failed to respond to an alerting condition, the reason would be in the design.

And I did ask if anyone else could think of an experimental situation that
might tease out the mechanisms of alerting (as opposed to its existence).
Maybe there could be experiments in the area of high workload stress, but
they would probably be very complex, and I can't see how they would work.

Finally:

I doubt you could ever find a phenomenon that can be described by only
one organization.

True. But a collection of observations can usually only be explained just one
of the models.

When you are comparing the relative merits of a fixed set of models, any
observations can change their relative likelihoods. But there is always
an infinity of other models standing in the wings awaiting their turn to
be tested.

I have a fundamental proposition about science that I have seen no reason
to change since before my grad school days:

"Whatever your theory, it is either imprecise or wrong."

Martin