[From Bob Clark (930528.1530 EDT)

Bill Powers (930518.0800 MDT)

You quote my remark (RKC 930516 @ 20:37 EST):

It seems my attempt to condense a complex series of events, that is
familiar to ordinary people, has omitted parts that are "taken for
granted" in ordinary conversation.

And you comment:

This implies that the PC view is well-known, but that people simply
neglect to mention all its details in ordinary conversation. I
think this is far from true, even though informal common sense often
comes closer to the PCT picture than scientific views do.

As I have increasing contact with "ordinary people" who are
interested in, and active with, the City Government, I find more and
more indications that they are, indeed, familiar with the PCT view --
but tend to express it in rather different language, intermingled
with assorted other views. These "other views" tend to include pop
psych, current theories of teaching, etc. -- But even these are not
ALL wrong, careful study sometimes reveals underlying PCT concepts.

Quoting me again:

Thus, the process, as I view it, begins with the perceptual
variables involved in riding a bike along a street. This includes
"paying attention" to all the variables required to maintain the
bike upright, moving as desired, etc.

You remark:

This is a non-explanation; it alludes to the existence of
explanatory terms with actually saying what they are.

Bill, OF COURSE this is a "non-explanation." It was NEVER INTENDED to
be any kind of "explanation."

My purpose was to DESCRIBE, in condensed summary, my concept of what
the rider is paying attention to as he observes his changing
surroundings. OF COURSE he has many additional perceptions, as you
point out. But they are not of concern in this summary.

Your much more detailed, and explicit, description, while valid,
doesn't clarify the summary. There is no limit to the details that
could be added. Can a shorter, but still adequate summary be written?

Quoting me:

The current perceptions are compared with the memories to determine
whether any form of "corrective action" is appropriate.

Your remark:

This way of putting it seems, at least to me, to imply an
inappropriate amount of reasoning, and makes the control process
seem needlessly complex.

How you find an implication of reasoning here, puzzles me. I am
simply trying to describe, in summary, the sequence of events as I
think they occur. Current perceptions, as I visualize the situation,
bring associated memories to mind. These memories are also current
perceptions, but not from current feedback sources. These memories
include those required for operation of the bike. They are being
selected and applied to the changing situation as needed. Some of
these activities amount to "running on automatic," or, perhaps,
"cruise control." But even when using cruise control, the rider
occasionally pays attention to the situation, being prepared for
readjustments if necessary.

Later, you state:

In your terms, you're treating the lower-level processes as if they
were "modes" of your own sixth order."

It seems that my suggested "Modes of Sixth Order" were not
communicated very well. The concept of "Modes" is offered as a way
to describe communications in terms of the Orders of the Hierarchy.
This is based on the observation that much (of course, not "all")
ordinary language is related to the events, situations, objects, etc
that people are interested in and concerned about.

My initial suggestion for Sixth Order was (921205): Control of
Interpersonal Relationships. "Modes of Sixth Order" was suggested
for grouping topics being communicated. The Orders of the Hierarchy
provide a basis for such grouping.

You quote me again:

Among these are variables related to possible obstacles and their
avoidance. When the current set of perceptual variables includes
some item calling for evaluation, attention is attracted. That is,
related memories come to awareness for examination.

From my standpoint, this is not well stated. I've condensed the time

scale excessively, and the sequence is a bit out of order. Let me
try it this way:

"The current set of perceptual variables is continually arousing
associated memories. Some of these memories include past experiences
with obstacles and their effects. Sometimes these remembered effects
are undesirable, calling for avoidance. These memories include
procedures that have resulted in successful avoidance. One, or a
combination, of these procedures is selected, and used to control the
sequences of action that follow."

As I see it, many, perhaps most, of this is pretty much "automatic,"
but with the rider occasionally paying attention to the on-going
process, expecting to make changes if there is an unexpected event.
Of course, this leaves the rider almost entirely free as you suggest,
to think about (in your terms, "devote the logical level to") "how to
get a friend to trade a particular baseball card."

It is my purpose, again, to describe the sequence of events as it
appears to the rider. Explanation? Perhaps, but not the point at
this time. Logic? Perhaps, in some sense, but not the point at this
time. An appropriate description must surely avoid logical
contradictions and inconsistencies, but that still leaves a large
number of alternatives.

Your remark about Control theory "containing concepts not already in
the vocabularies of many audiences," calls for a separate post.

Likewise for "Pass the Salt."

Regards, Bob Clark