MOL - 3D PCT CUBE

CSGnet Archive CSG2005
1

A picture is worth 1000 words –

I may be wrong but if you can start to think of HPCT in 3D the attached MS word doc may make sense.

I am not pretending to have everything worked out but I think this is a good start.

In this proposed depiction (not a model yet) the casual loop for reorganization starts with the

  1. Integration factor (related to gain) that has left

  2. Unresolved error in an active system.

  3. The unresolved error is then compared to a fixed reference (Y) of acceptable error within a level that is weighted and ranked for a given control process.

  4. If there is a significant difference in the unresolved errors across a given level it will be sensed by the next higher level.

  5. That cumulative error signal is then compared to a fixed reference (X) Reference of Acceptable Errors Weighted and ranked across a level.

  6. If there is a significant difference in the cumulative errors across a given level it will result in,

  7. Reorganization Random Changes in Perceptions References or Outputs of the next lower level,

  8. Thus reducing or increasing unresolved error in an active system.

  9. Repeat steps 3-7 until the unresolved error in less than (Y).

Mark Lazare

CompassMentalHealth.com

Phoenix AZ

O 602-224-7050

C 602-488-2262

PCT CUBE.doc (28 KB)

2

(I am sending this again for those who may not have MS Word or a newer Version of MS Word. – Mark Lazare.)

A picture is worth 1000 words –

I may be wrong but if you can start to think of HPCT in 3D the attached MS word doc may make sense.

I am not pretending to have everything worked out but I think this is a good start.

In this proposed depiction (not a model yet) the casual loop for reorganization starts with the

  1. Integration factor (related to gain) that has left

  2. Unresolved error in an active system.

  3. The unresolved error is then compared to a fixed reference (Y) of acceptable error within a level that is weighted and ranked for a given control process.

  4. If there is a significant difference in the unresolved errors across a given level it will be sensed by the next higher level.

  5. That cumulative error signal is then compared to a fixed reference (X) Reference of Acceptable Errors Weighted and ranked across a level.

  6. If there is a significant difference in the cumulative errors across a given level it will result in,

  7. Reorganization Random Changes in Perceptions References or Outputs of the next lower level,

  8. Thus reducing or increasing unresolved error in an active system.

  9. Repeat steps 3-7 until the unresolved error in less than (Y).

Mark Lazare

CompassMentalHealth.com

Phoenix AZ

O 602-224-7050

C 602-488-2262

Untitled.jpg

3

[From Rick Marken (2005.01.18.0820)]

Mark Lazare (2005.01.17) --

A picture is worth 1000 words --

Then I would put a working model at 1,000,000 words.

I may be wrong but if you can start to think of HPCT in 3D the attached MS
word doc may make sense.

It's a very nice diagram but I don't see what the third dimension brings to
this representation. There is a two dimensional version of this in the
learning chapter of B:CP.

Basically you have got a reorganization system (the system in the back in
the diagram) acting (in a manner not specified) to keep the integrated error
in the foreground control system at X10 (which I believe should be a
constant and zero; calling it X suggests that it is a variable).

I think it's unlikely that the reorganization would produce random changes
in the reference, perceptual and output signal, as stated on the diagram.
This would lead to no permanent change in the organization of the foreground
control system. The changes made by the reorganization system are most
useful if they are changes to the perceptual function (S9 in your diagram),
output function (O9 in the diagram) and the higher level output functions
(which are not shown) that result in the reference signal (Z10 and R in the
diagram).

···

--
Richard S. Marken
MindReadings.com
Home: 310 474 0313
Cell: 310 729 1400

--------------------

This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and
may contain privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use,
disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended
recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all copies
of the original message.

4

[Mark Lazare (2005.01.18.1155) ]

[From Rick Marken (2005.01.18.0820)]

RICK
It’s a very nice diagram but I don’t see what the third dimension brings to
this representation. There is a two dimensional version of this in the
learning chapter of B:CP.

What the 3rd dimension brings is way to represent how reorganization might actually work, in a model not just from a metaphor or an armchair.

Rick

Basically you have got a reorganization system (the system in the back in
the diagram) acting (in a manner not specified) to keep the integrated error
in the foreground control system at X10 (which I believe should be a
constant and zero; calling it X suggests that it is a variable).

First Y9 is the reference that is compared to the integration factor’s residual error. I am postulating that each controlled activity has an acceptable level of error. We routinely accept less than perfect. Also, we accept relatively greater error on each higher level (X) or conversely we expect tighter control on each lower level. No living system has an error signal as a constant zero and certainly not zero error at every level.

As you go up the hierarchy you must build in greater level of “acceptable error across a level� (X) or you would be in constant reorganization (crisis).

Rick
I think it’s unlikely that the reorganization would produce random changes in the reference, >perceptual and output signal, as stated on the diagram.

Frankly I think you are wrong. Think about some of questions from RTP

Is what you are doing working�

Is what you are doing getting you what you want?

Is what you are doing making you happy or content?

If the answer to all the above is no, then right, wrong or indifferent you will have to do something different.

Change how or what you perceive, change your expectation, or change what you are doing. Changing any one of these will change how you feel about the situation. Reducing the acceptable level of residual error (Y) and error across a given level (X). And yes I believe both are variable between people but may be constant or innate for an individual.

But how to choose what to change is a guess or a random act of reorganization

Sincerely,

image00214.jpg

Mark A. Lazare, Managing Partner

Compass Mental Health, LLC

4500 N. 32nd Street, Suite 104

Phoenix, AZ 85018

602 224-7050

877 224-7050

http://www.CompassMentalHealth.com/

HIPAA Confidentiality Notice

The documents inside this electronic transmission contains confidential information belonging to the sender that is legally privileged. This information is intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above. The authorized recipient of this information is prohibited from disclosing this information to any other party and is required to destroy the information after its stated need has been fulfilled, unless otherwise required by law.

If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution, or action taken in reliance on the contents of these documents is strictly prohibited. If you received this electronic transmission in error, please notify the sender immediately to arrange for return.

5

[From Rick Marken (2005.01.18.1220)]

Mark Lazare (2005.01.18.1155) ]

Rick Marken (2005.01.18.0820)

It's a very nice diagram but I don't see what the third dimension brings to
this representation. There is a two dimensional version of this in the
learning chapter of B:CP.

What the 3rd dimension brings is way to represent how reorganization might
actually work, in a model not just from a metaphor or an armchair.

I guess we just have very different notions of what a working model is.

···

--
Richard S. Marken
MindReadings.com
Home: 310 474 0313
Cell: 310 729 1400

--------------------

This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and
may contain privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use,
disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended
recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all copies
of the original message.

6

In a message dated 1/18/2005 1:21:13 P.M. US Mountain Standard Time, marken@MINDREADINGS.COM writes:

I guess we just have very different notions of what a working model is

My idea of a working model is something that acts / behaves just like the real thing. The energy sources may differ but they both maintain the same purpose with corresponding components.

So what is your notion of a model?

in the previous email you stated in reference to ERROR; RICK:“I believe should be a
constant and zero”

No living person can maintain zero error as in one of your demos.

Do you have a working model that can reorganize on it’s own?

Can you share with me your model of reorganization and how it works through a network and or hierarchy?

Have I missed the addition of awareness to the PCT model? Has that problem been solved?

Did you miss the rest of the email?

Rick

Basically you have got a reorganization system (the system in the back in
the diagram) acting (in a manner not specified) to keep the integrated error
in the foreground control system at X10 (which I believe should be a
constant and zero; calling it X suggests that it is a variable).

First Y9 is the reference that is compared to the integration factor’s residual error. I am postulating that each controlled activity has an acceptable level of error. We routinely accept less than perfect. Also, we accept relatively greater error on each higher level (X) or conversely we expect tighter control on each lower level. No living system has an error signal as a constant zero and certainly not zero error at every level.

As you go up the hierarchy you must build in greater level of “acceptable error across a level� (X) or you would be in constant reorganization (crisis).

Rick
I think it’s unlikely that the reorganization would produce random changes in the reference, >perceptual and output signal, as stated on the diagram.

Frankly I think you are wrong. Think about some of questions from RTP

Is what you are doing working�

Is what you are doing getting you what you want?

Is what you are doing making you happy or content?

If the answer to all the above is no, then right, wrong or indifferent you will have to do something different.

Change how or what you perceive, change your expectation, or change what you are doing. Changing any one of these will change how you feel about the situation. Reducing the acceptable level of residual error (Y) and error across a given level (X). And yes I believe both are variable between people but may be constant or innate for an individual.

But how to choose what to change is a guess or a random act of reorganization

7

[From Rick Marken (2005.01.18.1400)]

Mark Lazare

Rick Marken

I guess we just have very different notions of what a working model is

My idea of a working model is something that acts / behaves just like the real
thing...

So what is your notion of a model?

Same as yours, apparently. I guess I was misled into thinking we had
different notions by your saying:

What the 3rd dimension brings is way to represent how reorganization might
actually work, in a model not just from a metaphor or an armchair

It sounded like you were saying that your diagram was a working model,
which, of course, it isn't.

in the previous email you stated in reference to ERROR; RICK:"I believe
should be a constant and zero". No living person can maintain zero error
as in one of your demos.

Yes. But the aim of the reorganizing system is to organize a system so that
it can keep error _close_ to zero. The goal is zero even though the actual
error is rarely actually zero. You could have the reference be non-zero but
then what value do you choose? The ambient level of error in a control
system depends on the gain of the control system. So a system with high gain
may be able to keep the absolute level of error close to .001 error units.
Such a system would actually be doing poorly if the ambient error went to
.01. But .01 might reflect quite good control in a low gain system. From a
modeling standpoint it seems simplest to design the reorganizing system so
that the reference for error in all systems is zero and the rate of
reorganization proportional to the difference between some measure of actual
error (like integrated error, as I your diagram) and zero.

Did you miss the rest of the email?

No. Sorry. I'll answer some points now. You said:

As you go up the hierarchy you must build in greater level of �acceptable
error across a level� (X) or you would be in constant reorganization
(crisis).

This is not true. There is no concept of "acceptable error" in PCT and
certainly no requirement of a greater level of it as you go up the
hierarchy. In fact, the ambient level of error at higher levels of my
spreadsheet hierarchy is actually less than that at the lower levels.
Acceptability of error implies some threshold level of error, above which
reorganization starts. This is not the way reorganization is conceived of in
PCT. The model of reorganization in PCT assumes that the _rate_ of
reorganization (changes/unit time) is proportional to the size of the
perceived error in the control system being reorganized.

Rick
I think it's unlikely that the reorganization would produce random changes in
the reference, perceptual and output signal, as stated on the diagram.

Frankly I think you are wrong.

Well, it wouldn't be the first time. That I was wrong or that you thunk it.
In this case, I don't find your reasons for thinking me wrong to be very
convincing.

···

--
Richard S. Marken
MindReadings.com
Home: 310 474 0313
Cell: 310 729 1400

--------------------

This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and
may contain privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use,
disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended
recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all copies
of the original message.