I don’t think that’s a problem. The Figure in B:CP that I thought had problems was Fig. 15.3. It took me a while to realize that, once again, Bill had it right. I was pretty much convinced by this CSGNet post.
The most important part of that post (for me) was the last line: “Model it, Rick (or Bruce A.) You’ll see.” So I have taken to modeling it using my three level spreadsheet hierarchy. I haven’t completed all the modeling yet – I’ll show the results when I’ve finished it – but the epiphany I had was that the system in Figure 15.3 represents just one of many such systems, each simultaneously sending their “TO” signals to a HIGHER ORDER system and receiving corresponding “FROM” signals from it. And, perhaps most importantly, when the PERCEPTUAL and/or MEMORY SWITCHES in these systems are “thrown” (as shown for just one system in Figure 5.13) they are thrown in all systems simultaneously! This means that, in “imagination mode”, the HIGHER ORDER system gets the same perceptual inputs from from memory as it would get if all systems were operating in “Control Mode”. I’ve implemented this imagination system architecture into the spreadsheet hierarchy model and it works like a charm.
I think the fact that the perceptual and memory switches are thrown simultaneously is hard to pick up from Figure 15.3. After I’ve completed the spreadsheet model I’ll see if I can come up with a diagram of how it works that makes things a bit clearer. But I think it’s important to remember what Bill said about this memory model in his CSGNet post: "In Chapter 15 of BCP, I was constructing an hypothesis, not saying how things really are" (emphasis mine).This applies to EVERY ASPECT of the PCT model.
Just because a model works doesn’t mean that the behavior modeled works that way. You’ve got to TEST the model to see if its behavior matches that of the living systems being modeled.