<Bob Clark (940223.10:30 EST>
Martin Taylor (940204 18:30 EST)
You bring up an important point with the following:
These sound very close to statements that it is output that is
controlled, rather than input. Is that what you mean?
No, that is not what I mean.
Your question involves an important distinction. In general
conversation and planning, the emphasis (and attention) are mainly on
the "outcome" to be accomplished. An "outcome" is an anticipated set
of perceptual variables. It consists of selected portions of
memories that act as reference levels for lower order systems. An
"outcome" is an "input," not an "output."
The basic Unit Control System has no connection from the Output
Function into the remainder of the System _except_ through the
Environment and thence through the Feedback Function. The Unit
System has exactly two inputs: 1) the Feedback Signal from the
Environment via the Feedback Function; and 2) from recordings
(memories) of past Feedback Signals currently being used as Reference
Signals. These recordings can only be changed by action of some
higher level system and/or the Reorganizing System.
A familiar example: One perceives the room to be a bit chilly. (Skin
temperature sensors send feedback signals into the system.) One
considers alternatives (imagined): 1) go into the other room and
change the thermostat setting; 2) call to someone already in the
other room requesting a change in the setting; 3) get a sweater; 4)
turn on an extra heater; etc etc. These are all indirect ways of
controlling skin temperature. Any of them would be expected to
result in a more acceptable skin temperature.
The output of the furnace may be controlled, but only _indirectly_,
by changing the setting of the thermostat.
As the DME examines these alternatives, additional aspects of the
current situation are included. How far away is the thermostat? Can
the person in the other room hear me? Is getting the sweater too
much trouble? etc etc.
The DME is concerned with three sets of perceptions: 1) imaginary
future situations and events; 2) present time situations and events;
3) recordings of past situations and events. The DME examines and
selects from available recordings in accordance with present time
situations and events.
It is interesting to observe that past, present, and future times are
each important to the operation of the system.
People DO make plans and prepare alternate courses of actions, or
"fall-back positions." I have assumed that this is done by
imagination loops in program-level ECSs, ...
Imagination is essential to the operation of the DME. Indeed, it
appears that _any_ imagination loop must be closed through the DME.
Where else? A great deal of planning involves the program-level
systems, so that the program level is familiar. However any
operation, or modification, of the program level can only be done by
higher level systems. And those systems are also subject to
modification. The process of planning illustrates the operation of
the DME at any level. It is not restricted to the program level.
In the absence of a DME (or equivalent) a couple of questions need
answers. What are imagination loops? How are the loops formed? How
are they activated? And how are conclusions determined?
Without some equivalent to a DME, an imagination loop at any level is
incomplete.
It seems to me that no matter how you slice it, making decisions has
to involve a perception that incorporates the construct of a
conditional -- an IF-THEN construction.
I agree that some form of IF-THEN construction is unavoidable. A
"computed GO-TO," is equivalent. Yes, it is logically necessary for
the DME to include a form of "conditional." However, such an
operation need not be restricted to the program, or any other
specific, level.
Last year, if I remember correctly, you placed the DME alongside the
main hierarchy so that it could act at all hierarchic levels.
To me, "alongside" is too specific, too geometric. The exact
location of the DME does not restrict its access to the hierarchy.
Since it can select the reference signals for the highest level, it
is, in some sense, "beyond" the highest level.
That idea parallels my notion that a symbolic-logical hierarchy
parallels the "classic" analogue hierarchy rather than being "above"
the analogue hierarchy as it is in the classic set of levels.
I am not acquainted with your "symbolic-logical hierarchy."
You refer to:
a process I have described as "contrast."
I am unfamiliar with this use of "contrast." The term implies a
comparison of two (or more?) sets of perceptions. Could "contrast"
be a measure of the degree or manner, in which they fail to match?
This seems a straightforward concept. To the degree that a
comparison between two (or more) sets of perceptions is involved,
this resembles some aspects of the operation of the DME.
Decision. Control of output. Choices. The "I" (who is that, in a
case of multiple personality?). The DME. Program-level perceptual
control. All difficult issues.
Yes, "difficult issues."
I have not discussed the "multiple personality." A discussion of the
relation[s] between the DME and the "I" in "multiple personality"
would require an initial discussion of both "personality" and "mental
illness." These and related topics are very interesting and important.
At this time there seems to be no generally accepted definition of
either topic within PCT.
In the publications that I have on hand, I find no reference to
"personality" either in an index, nor in a quick scan of the text.
The nearest is in Ed Ford's books where he includes adjectives and
adverbs that appear to relate to the concept of "personality." But
the concept of "personality," as such, is not found. In addition to
BCP, these references include: Living Control Systems, Living Control
systems II, American Behavior Scientist of 1990, Mind Reading, Love
Guaranteed, and Freedom From Stress.
In my post, DEM IX, PERSONALITY, (Bob Clark 930929.12:46 EST), I have
discussed the general concept of "personality" as included within my
view of the hierarchy. A discussion of your question requires a more
complete discussion of these and related topics.
I think discussion of these very important and interesting topics
should be separated from other subjects.
I do not like to contemplate the possibility of control of output,
and I'd like to be shown how the DME and/or the program-level
control of perception do not involve it.
I have not discussed the operation of the program level. I only note
that it must exist before it can act. How is the program level
formed? That requires operation of the DME.
At the beginning of this post, I have tried to show that the DME has
no "possibility of control of output."
In summary:
There is no internal connection between the output of a control
system and any input. The system has no direct way to perceive its
output.
and
The DME seeks to achieve a future set of perceptions. It does this
by controlling the current operation of the hierarchy. For this
purpose, it uses recorded sets of past perceptions as reference
signals.
This is control of "outcome" not control of "output."
I'll be interested in what you think of all this.
Regards, Bob Clark