Motivation (was Teleology)

[From Fred Nickols (2005.12.06.0750 EST)] -

I've been loosely following this thread and it ties to one I've been following on another list. Over there (on a training and development list), quite a conversation is taking place regarding that age-old (and mythical) factor in human performance: motivation. Personally, I don't give a lot of credence to what I see as the typical view of motivation, namely, that it's some kind of state of being, a causal factor if you will, that leads or makes people want to do something. (And, if motivation is absent, they of course don't want to do it.) From that view naturally arises rewards, punishment and good old "carrot and stick" management. As my daughter used to say when she was a little girl, "Yucky-pooh."

It seems to me that the concept (and theories) of motivation stem from a two-faceted inference: (1) if people are doing something, they're motivated to do it and (2) if people aren't doing something, then they're not motivated to do it. And when they're not doing something, or seem reluctant to do it, those want them to do it resort to efforts aimed at motivating them.

It further seems to me that there's not really much room in PCT for the conventional concept of motivation. If someone's not doing something, a more PCT-like explanation would be that they don't hold that something as a reference signal (or they do but their current capabilities aren't producing the outcome in question so they're in the process of reorganizing). I'm going to go back to B:CP to see what Bill had to say about motivation and I'll check the other PCT "bibles" as well but, for now, I'm curious what others on this list have to say about the concept of motivation and the relationship if any to PCT.

···

--
Regards,

Fred Nickols, CPT
Senior Consultant
Distance Consulting
"Assistance at A Distance"
nickols@att.net
www.nickols.us

From [Marc Abrams (2005.12.06.0913)]

I’ll throw my two cents in here.

First, it really depends on what you mean by ‘motivation’.

From the OED;

Psychol. and Sociol. The conscious or unconscious stimulus for action towards a desired goal provided by psychological or social factors; that which gives purpose or direction to behaviour.

So, according to this definition, ‘motivation’ is synonymous with the control process. That is, when you speak of someone being ‘motivated’, you are talking about them controlling for something.

Of course the ‘problem’ here for some is that people are not always ‘motivated’ to control for what someone else wants them to be controlling for at any time.

It seems to me that like ‘predicting’ the future, we spend gobs of time and money trying to figure out how to get folks to do things we want them to do rather than finding out how they might want to do it, and I think like predicting, is largely a big waste of time and money, but our need to control the environment is strong so it is very unlikely that this will ever stop.

What are your thoughts on this?

Regards,

Marc

In a message dated 12/6/2005 8:05:31 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, nickols@ATT.NET writes:

···

[From Fred Nickols (2005.12.06.0750 EST)] -

I’ve been loosely following this thread and it ties to one I’ve been following on another list. Over there (on a training and development list), quite a conversation is taking place regarding that age-old (and mythical) factor in human performance: motivation. Personally, I don’t give a lot of credence to what I see as the typical view of motivation, namely, that it’s some kind of state of being, a causal factor if you will, that leads or makes people want to do something. (And, if motivation is absent, they of course don’t want to do it.) From that view naturally arises rewards, punishment and good old “carrot and stick” management. As my daughter used to say when she was a little girl, “Yucky-pooh.”

It seems to me that the concept (and theories) of motivation stem from a two-faceted inference: (1) if people are doing something, they’re motivated to do it and (2) if people aren’t doing something, then they’re not motivated to do it. And when they’re not doing something, or seem reluctant to do it, those want them to do it resort to efforts aimed at motivating them.

It further seems to me that there’s not really much room in PCT for the conventional concept of motivation. If someone’s not doing something, a more PCT-like explanation would be that they don’t hold that something as a reference signal (or they do but their current capabilities aren’t producing the outcome in question so they’re in the process of reorganizing). I’m going to go back to B:CP to see what Bill had to say about motivation and I’ll check the other PCT “bibles” as well but, for now, I’m curious what others on this list have to say about the concept of motivation and the relationship if any to PCT.


Regards,

Fred Nickols, CPT
Senior Consultant
Distance Consulting
“Assistance at A Distance”
nickols@att.net
www.nickols.us

[From Bjorn Simonsen (2005.12.06,16:25EUST)]

From [Marc Abrams (2005.12.06.0913)
From the OED;

Psychol. and Sociol. The conscious or unconscious stimulus
for action towards a desired goal provided by psychological
or social factors; that which gives purpose or direction to behaviour.

So, according to this definition, 'motivation' is synonymous
with the control process. That is, when you speak of someone
being 'motivated', you are talking about them controlling for something.

I agree that this definition is synonymous with one or another control
process. But if a desired goal is provided by social factors it must be a
control theory where actions are controlled. Maybe William Glasser's Control
Theory or Reality Therapy is actual (I think he teaches people to control
their own or other people's actions). But according to PCT I don't think Mr.
A is able to change Mr. B's behavior.

Of course the 'problem' here for some is that people are not
always 'motivated' to control for what someone else wants
them to be controlling for at any time.

And when they do as other people wish, I think they control their own
perceptions.

From [Marc Abrams (2005.12.06.1134)]

In a message dated 12/6/2005 10:47:08 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, bjornsi@BROADPARK.NO writes:

clip_image001.gif

clip_image0021.gif

···

[From Bjorn Simonsen (2005.12.06,16:25EUST)]

I agree that this definition is synonymous with one or another control
process. But if a desired goal is provided by social factors it must be a
control theory where actions are controlled. Maybe William Glasser’s Control
Theory or Reality Therapy is actual (I think he teaches people to control
their own or other people’s actions).

First of all Glasser does not teach others to try and control the behavior of others.

Second, this provincialism is getting a bit old. What is different about Glasser’s approach, my approach, Powers’ approach, and anyone else who has an interest in the control of perception is how all this takes place and what exactly is involved in the process.

That is, exactly what is involved in the ‘input’, ‘output’, and ‘comparator’ functions besides ‘signals’.

If you want to believe that the PCT or HPCT formulation provides you with the answers you seek, bully for you, but others including myself find PCT and HPCT incomplete in being able to address some very fundamental behavioral questions.

Questions at least questions about behavior most people are interested in

But rather than take this is as some kind of insult and slap in the face you might do better to find out why others including myself see these holes in PCT and try to see whether they are real or imaginary.

Maybe you can tell me how you make something better or improve it without understanding and acknowledging that something is amiss in the first place?

Please explain to me how, when I ask how anyone can after 50 years, take the concept of levels as ‘foundational’ when no one has been able to devise a way of either identifying them or testing for them is beyond me. I asked Erling this very question yesterday, and like all my other questions about PCT I get either silence or an ad hominem attack.

Control is control, and I believe in the control of perception. I just do not believe the inner workings are the way they are currently laid out to be, and when I say this people want me to produce a ‘counter’ model so here is a diagram of my control model;

I won’t bother going into the details here but this is my ‘PCT’ model, and yes I am modeling this in SD.

This my friends is simply a different way of viewing and understanding the same control processes you like talking about here on CSGnet, Glasser likes talking about in Reality Therapy, and what I like talking about in human cognition

At the aggregate level of the organism and above we are all talking about the same damn thing.

This is a teleological control diagram. That is, it is a functional diagram, and unlike PCT, this is a metaphor and not a blueprint of our nervous system.

That blueprint will have to wait for some much further advances and understanding in human physiology. But that lack of knowledge should not stop us from trying to understand what happens with control at the higher levels of abstraction such as that at the organism and group levels.

Questions like the one posed by Fred this morning I believe is an excellent example of what we might be able to look at and analyze from a ‘control’ perspective productively without getting involved in the details of the ‘signaling’ involved.

But according to PCT I don’t think Mr.A is able to change Mr. B’s behavior.

Why not?

Of course the ‘problem’ here for some is that people are not
always ‘motivated’ to control for what someone else wants
them to be controlling for at any time.

And when they do as other people wish, I think they control their own
perceptions.

On the surface this seems right but I think there are deeper issues involved here. Yes, ultimately we all control what we ‘intend’ to. The real question though underlying this is are we controlling it by ‘free choice’, meaning is it something we want to do, or is it something we feel either coerced, forced or compelled to do, even though we really would prefer not to.

Regards,

Marc

Re: Motivation (was Teleology)
[Martin Taylor 2005.12.06.13.07]

From
[Marc Abrams (2005.12.06.1134)]

Control is control,
and I believe in the control of perception. I just do not believe the
inner workings are the way they are currently laid out to be, and when
I say this people want me to produce a ‘counter’ model so here is a
diagram of my control model;

I won’t bother going
into the details here but this is my ‘PCT’ model, and yes I am
modeling this in SD.

Interesting. Here’s the circuit diagram (I
won’t call it a model) I presented at the 1993 Data Fusion Seminar,
part of a paper highly praised a few months ago by Bill P in its Web
incarnation
http://www.mmtaylor.net/PCT/DFS93/DFS93_1.html.

So far as I can see, the only difference is that in my circuit
diagram, the output goes either to the real world or to the imagined
representation of the real world, not both, though I acknowledge that
it might be more useful if the connection to the world model were
always there, and only the output to the real world were to be
switched on or off. (This relates to the thread a month or three ago,
as to whether imagined elements entered into normal perception, which
was resolved – in the political sense of agreement achieved – in
favour of them doing so.)

Keep going, Marc. It seems you are on the right track. Fleshing
out the details and testing against data is next. That’s something I
didn’t do.

Martin

clip_image001.gif

clip_image0021.gif

p4.Planning1.ECU.jpg

···

[Martin Taylor 2005.12.06.13.19]

[From Fred Nickols (2005.12.06.0750 EST)] -

It seems to me that the concept (and theories) of motivation stem from a two-faceted inference: (1) if people are doing something, they're motivated to do it and (2) if people aren't doing something, then they're not motivated to do it. And when they're not doing something, or seem reluctant to do it, those want them to do it resort to efforts aimed at motivating them.

It further seems to me that there's not really much room in PCT for the conventional concept of motivation.

I don't know about "conventional" concepts of motivation, but PCT has three places (at least) where aspects of the conventional views apply.

In PCT, one wouldn't be acting if the value of a controlled perception equalled its reference value (or, I should say, one would not be altering the current action). If a perception is being controlled, one is motivated to act to correct deviations from its reference. So, a PCT view of motivation would say that you can't tell about motivation simply by looking at action or changes in action.

Place (1), then, is the simple fact of control. If one is actively controlling a perception, one is (tautologially) motivated to control it.

"Motivation" usually relates not only to what one is controlling, but how much one cares to do it. That relates to someone's overall energy level and stuff like that. The phrase "I'm not very motivated ..." makes sense in everyday conversation. That's place 2 and 3.

Place 2 in PCT relates to the threshold for deviations between perception and reference below which the effective error signal in zero -- more properly, I imagine, the threshold is soft, and the effective error signal grows at first slowly and then more rapidly with the deviation. If the deviation is in that near-zero effective error region, one is "not very motivated" to do anything about it.

Place 3 is in the variation of gain of a control loop, a facility that isn't in the strict HPCT diagram, but which has often been talked about and sometimes modelled. At times of low gain (presumably depending on global things like low blood sugar, and on what else is being controlled in potential conflict with the one under consideration), the organism isn't much motivated to control this perception.

Bottom line, being "motivated" comes down to "motivated to do what" and "motivated how much". PCT has a place for each, and together they crudely represent the conventional view (if I understand what that is :slight_smile:

Martin

From [Marc Abrams (2005.12.06.1421)]

In a message dated 12/6/2005 1:30:05 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, mmt-csg@ROGERS.COM writes:

···

[Martin Taylor 2005.12.06.13.07]

Keep going, Marc. It seems you are on the right track. Fleshing out the details and testing against data is next. That’s something I didn’t do.

Thanks Martin, I really do appreciate the encouragement. I would hope we might be able to do this together, or at least the aspects that interest each of us since we both seem to have the same general idea.

I would also hope that others on CSGnet would find it profitable to talk not only about these models but about others that some might currently hold.

We will never get at the ‘truth’ by denying the existence of other ideas.

I love your diagram, and as I’m sure you realize there are very specific reasons why I have the output going into our world view, but please also note that my world view is where my reference condition comes from as well.

Yes, the next step is modeling and data collection. Both of which I believe I have some very useful tools for, especially the data collection.

Let’s see if there is any interest on CSGnet for this type of discussion, if not I will take this off-line with you.

Regards,

Marc

[From Erling Jorgensen (2005.12.06 1630 EST)]

Marc Abrams (2005.12.06.1421)

Martin Taylor 2005.12.06.13.07

Keep going, Marc. It seems you are on the right track. Fleshing out the
details and testing against data is next. That’s something I didn’t do.

Thanks Martin, I really do appreciate the encouragement. I would hope we
might be able to do this together, or at least the aspects that interest each of
us since we both seem to have the same general idea.

I would also hope that others on CSGnet would find it profitable to talk not
only about these models but about others that some might currently hold.

Let’s see if there is any interest on CSGnet for this type of discussion, if
not I will take this off-line with you.

I hope you do not take this discussion off-line with Martin alone.
I am interested in following the discussion, but I cannot say ahead
of time how or if I would be able to contribute. Silence does not
always mean lack of interest. Sometimes it just means too many
other things going on.

I love your diagram, and as I’m sure you realize there are very specific
reasons why I have the output going into our world view, but please also note
that my world view is where my reference condition comes from as well.

This is the interesting part of the model you are sketching out –
references coming from our own world-model-to-date. I am interested
to see whether that kind of re-entrant signal from the output would
lead to stability or instabilities. Even small versions of a
working demo (i.e., what are sometimes called “toy models”, with
a tip of the hat to Bruce G.) could be illustrative.

Thanks for giving us some preliminary pictures of the linkages,
as you are envisioning them.

All the best,
Erling

NOTICE: This e-mail communication (including any attachments) is CONFIDENTIAL and the materials contained herein are PRIVILEGED and intended only for disclosure to or use by the person(s) listed above. If you are neither the intended recipient(s), nor a person responsible for the delivery of this communication to the intended recipient(s), you are hereby notified that any retention, dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify me immediately by using the “reply” feature or by calling me at the number listed above, and then immediately delete this message and all attachments from your computer. Thank you.
<<<>>>

[From Bjorn Simonsen (2005.12.06,23:00 EUST)]

From [Marc Abrams (2005.12.06.1134)]
First of all Glasser does not teach others to try and
control the behavior of others.

I remember Glasser from books, but it was Tom Bourbon who opened my eyes.
Which different knowledge do you have?

http://www.responsiblethinking.com/PCT-Reality-Therapy-Book-Two-Chapter-19.h
tm

Please explain to me how, when I ask how anyone can after
50 years, take the concept of levels as 'foundational' when
no one has been able to devise a way of either identifying
them or testing for them is beyond me. I asked Erling this
very question yesterday, and like all my other questions
about PCT I get either silence or an ad hominem attack.

Ask a neurologist, he will explain the 3-4 lowest levels. You will get
answers as if you read BCP
Ask a neurologist to explain how he controls a perception at the
Relationship level. You will get hypothetical answer.

I won't bother going into the details here but this is my
'PCT' model, and yes I am modeling this in SD.

The way I read your model is that you imagine the words you talk, at the
same time you talk them. Do it in your SD and I think you will get problems.
If the model tells me that I some times imagine what to say, and other times
say it, the model is just like the one I found in BCP at two different
pages.

Bjorn

From [Marc Abrams (2005.12.06.1800)]

In a message dated 12/6/2005 4:50:53 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, EJorgensen@RIVERBENDCMHC.ORG writes:

···

[From Erling Jorgensen (2005.12.06 1630 EST)]

This is the interesting part of the model you are sketching out –
references coming from our own world-model-to-date. I am interested
to see whether that kind of re-entrant signal from the output would
lead to stability or instabilities. Even small versions of a
working demo (i.e., what are sometimes called “toy models”, with
a tip of the hat to Bruce G.) could be illustrative.

Thanks for giving us some preliminary pictures of the linkages,
as you are envisioning them.

You got it, but lets wait a bit ( a few days) and see who else might be interested, if we can get a few more I’ll post to CSGnet, if not I will do it privately. I don’t want to take up bandwidth if folks are not interested in it, and I would much prefer to deal with those that are directly.

I understand that this list is about PCT so I am not interested in posting my ideas here if folks think I’m in some type of competition with PCT because I’m not. At this point I’m on a ‘fishing’ expedition to see who may be interested in further discussion in these areas. I’m not interested in getting into meaningless arguments with people. All I want to do is work toward some approximation of the truth and I know I can’t do it alone and I know that whatever ideas I may have they are incomplete at best.

Erling, along with Martin I welcome your interest and thank you for your support. I hope others might feel the same way, including Bill Powers and Rick Marken, and Bryan Thalhammer among others.

My preference is to stay on CSGnet with this material, but I fully understand if some might find it objectionable.

Regards,

Marc

NOTICE: This e-mail communication (including any attachments) is CONFIDENTIAL and the materials contained herein are PRIVILEGED and intended only for disclosure to or use by the person(s) listed above. If you are neither the intended recipient(s), nor a person responsible for the delivery of this communication to the intended recipient(s), you are hereby notified that any retention, dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify me immediately by using the “reply” feature or by calling me at the number listed above, and then immediately delete this message and all attachments from your computer. Thank you.
<<<>>>

[From Rick Marken (2005.12.06.1530)]

Marc Abrams (2005.12.06.1134)

Please explain to me how, when I ask how anyone can after 50 years, take the
concept of levels as 'foundational' when no one has been able to devise a
way of either identifying them or testing for them is beyond me.

I can't quite tell but it sounds like you may be asking how anyone can take
the concept of levels as "foundational" when no one has been able to devise
a way testing the concept and/or identifying the levels. If that's what you
are asking, I think I've already answered it but I'll try to answer it
again.

The concept of levels of control is based on several different observations
and tests. First is the observation that certain types of perceptions
depend on others but not vice versa. So the perception of a square
(configuration) depends on the perception of contour (sensation) but not
vice versa (you can perceive contours without there being a perception of a
square). So one type of perception (configuration) seems to be
hierarchically related to another type (sensation).

Second is the observation that the nervous system itself seems to be
organized hierarchically.

Third is the observation that control of some types of perceptions can be
done on a faster time scale than can control of other types of perceptions,
suggesting that the faster control is occurring at a lower level in a
hierarchy (see my Hierarchy of Perception and Control demo at
http://www.mindreadings.com/ControlDemo/HP.html)

Fourth is the the observation that some controlling can be seen to be
temporally nested within the controlling done by other systems, suggesting
that they are at a lower level in a hierarchy than the slower systems (See
some of the Portable Demonstrator demos in B:CP and my Levels of Control
demo at http://www.mindreadings.com/ControlDemo/Levels.html.

Finally, we need hierarchical models to account for some phenomena. For
example, see my two level model of two handed coordination at
http://www.mindreadings.com/Coordination.html. Also, see Bill's inverted
pendulum model at http://www.mindreadings.com/powerspend.pdf.

Control is control, and I believe in the control of perception. I just do
not believe the inner workings are the way they are currently laid out to be,
and when I say this people want me to produce a 'counter' model so here is a
diagram of my control model;

This is terrific Marc. Great progress.

I won't bother going into the details here but this is my 'PCT' model, and
yes I am modeling this in SD.

Excellent. I presume that you came up with this model to explain some
empirical observation(s) that could not be explained by the current PCT
model. Could you explain what those observations are? This would go a long
way toward showing how to test your model.

This my friends is simply a different way of viewing and understanding the
same control processes you like talking about here on CSGnet, Glasser likes
talking about in Reality Therapy, and what I like talking about in human
cognition

Well, there appear to be some significant differences between the model in
your diagram and the PCT model. The biggest difference, of course, is the
"world model" box. What is a "world model"? How does it work? What is it
there to explain? The reference for what I presume is the perceptual signal
(the output of the "sensory input" box) comes from this world model. Why
does the world model specify the value of the perceptual signal? That is,
why does the world model care what the value of the perceptual signal is?
Finally, is there some test I can do to demonstrate to myself that your
version of of the PCT model is superior to the current version?

I think what we need now are some equations describing the behavior of the
boxes in your diagram.

Best

Rick

···

--
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.

From [Marc Abrams (2005.12.06.1845)]

In a message dated 12/6/2005 5:06:14 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, bjornsi@BROADPARK.NO writes:

···

[From Bjorn Simonsen (2005.12.06,23:00 EUST)]

From [Marc Abrams (2005.12.06.1134)]
First of all Glasser does not teach others to try and
control the behavior of others.

I remember Glasser from books, but it was Tom Bourbon who opened my eyes.
Which different knowledge do you have?

First of all Tom did not rip Glasser because he felt Glasser told folks to try and control others. He ripped him because Tom did not like Glasser’s speculation on the ‘needs’ he felt everyone has and he also felt that Glasser thought the environment 'caused the behavior of others.

But I believe Tom was wrong on both counts. First, Glasser’s ‘speculation’ was no different than Powers’ speculation about the 11 levels. This sounds an awful lot like the Thalhammer - Kitzke feud of dueling spirits. Second, Glasser might have felt the environment influenced a child’s behavior but I suggest you go take a peek at Stations of the Mind, Glasser

Please explain to me how, when I ask how anyone can after
50 years, take the concept of levels as ‘foundational’ when
no one has been able to devise a way of either identifying
them or testing for them is beyond me. I asked Erling this
very question yesterday, and like all my other questions
about PCT I get either silence or an ad hominem attack.

Ask a neurologist, he will explain the 3-4 lowest levels.

Really? Do you have one in mind? According to all the neuroscientists I have read, including Edelman Kandel, Llinas, and many others, none of them has the slightest notion of the ‘levels’ you speak of, in the context of a hierarchy as presented by Powers.

Please provide a cite other than B:CP

ou will get >answers as if you read BCP

And when did Powers become an authority in Physiology?

I won’t bother going into the details here but this is my
‘PCT’ model, and yes I am modeling this in SD.

The way I read your model

is that you imagine the words you talk, at the
same time you talk them. Do it in your SD and I think you will get problems.
If the model tells me that I some times imagine what to say, and other times
say it, the model is just like the one I found in BCP at two different
pages.

I have no idea what you are trying to say here Bjorn. You also might do far better trying to clarify and ask me what I mean rather then sitting there with your crystal ball trying to tell me what I think.

If you are interested in learning more about my ideas I would be happy to discuss them with you but I’m not interested in comparing my model to that of Bill’s. If you have a reservation about any of my ideas I would like to hear them but only if you can tell me what should replace that idea and why.

Telling me that I can’t do something because it is done differently in B:CP is a waste of both your time and mine.

My ideas will live and die on their own merits, and not according to some supposed authority. Either my ideas will be useful and helpful or they won’t be. I am extremely interested in finding out which one’s are and which ones are not useful.

Are you willing to help? I’m willing to help you, and as I said in my post on critical discussion I believe we can help each other, not because we might have different ideas, but because we do have different ideas.

Regards,

Marc

From [Marc Abrams (2005.12.05.1902)]

Thanks for the thoughtful reply.

In a message dated 12/6/2005 6:32:30 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, marken@MINDREADINGS.COM writes:

···

[From Rick Marken (2005.12.06.1530)]

Marc Abrams (2005.12.06.1134)

Please explain to me how, when I ask how anyone can after 50 years, take >> the concept of levels as ‘foundational’ when no one has been able to devise a >> way of either identifying them or testing for them is beyond me.

I can’t quite tell but it sounds like you may be asking how anyone can take
the concept of levels as “foundational” when no one has been able to devise
a way testing the concept and/or identifying the levels. If that’s what you
are asking, I think I’ve already answered it but I’ll try to answer it
again.

The concept of levels of control is based on several different observations
and tests. First is the observation that certain types of perceptions
depend on others but not vice versa.

As far as I understand it these ‘observations’ were the reflections of and within a single individual. I have not ‘observed’ this to be true in me so how may I observe this in others? That is, what physiology or biology may I refer to that would help me to understand where the ‘relationship’ level existed or even that it existed.

It is not as if I don’t trust Bill Powers. I do not believe he is lying or trying to deceive anyone, I just don’t have enough evidence or data for my own needs.

So the perception of a square
(configuration) depends on the perception of contour (sensation) but not
vice versa (you can perceive contours without there being a perception of a
square). So one type of perception (configuration) seems to be
hierarchically related to another type (sensation).

The literature that I have read on perceptions does not confirm these concepts and ideas. Can you cite some other sources besides those of Powers, that might help me understand this better?

Second is the observation that the nervous system itself seems to be
organized hierarchically.

For what purpose? I can organize the nervous system(S) in any number of structural types I desire depending on what I am interested in showing, and this in fact has lead me to some of my confusion.

If we are talking about a ‘structural’ hierarchy; that is, from the spine to the cortex that is one way of viewing it, but if that is the case are you saying the ‘relationship’ level is somewhere in the mid-brain? The PCT hierarchy cannot be both a functional and a structural representation of our nervous system(S) at the same time as Bill has claimed. Remember the claim is the PCT hierarchy is a blueprint of out nervous systems, not simply a metaphor.

So my question still remains, what does the hierarchy represent, structure or function, and what data do you have to support this view?

Third is the observation that control of some types of perceptions can be
done on a faster time scale than can control of other types of perceptions,
suggesting that the faster control is occurring at a lower level in a
hierarchy (see my Hierarchy of Perception and Control demo at
http://www.mindreadings.com/ControlDemo/HP.html)

Ok, here your ‘observations’ are those of a model, not an individual and in that model a ‘perception’ is represented by a simple ‘signal’, again have you been able to validate this through physiological data? If not, what you have ‘data’ on is a computer model not a human, so it might be a fine theoretical piece of work but how can you validate this empirically?

Fourth is the the observation that some controlling can be seen to be
temporally nested within the controlling done by other systems, suggesting
that they are at a lower level in a hierarchy than the slower systems (See
some of the Portable Demonstrator demos in B:CP and my Levels of Control
demo at http://www.mindreadings.com/ControlDemo/Levels.html.

Again, from a theoretical standpoint I applaud your effort. Where is the empirical evidence? Once again you are collecting ‘data’ on a computer program not an individual

Finally, we need hierarchical models to account for some phenomena. For
example, see my two level model of two handed coordination at
http://www.mindreadings.com/Coordination.html. Also, see Bill’s inverted
pendulum model at http://www.mindreadings.com/powerspend.pdf.

No, you don’t need a hierarchy, a network would do just fine, but again as with the previous three points, your ‘data’ and the ‘phenomena’ you speak of are all model and not human generated.

First, and I am being very serious here, what else did you think I was asking and why? I ask this because to me, my question was as clear as day so if I am not communicating my ideas well I’d like to know how I might improve that. How could I have communicated my question so that you would not have had any problem understanding it. I can’t see the difference between the way you posed it to the way I asked it.

Control is control, and I believe in the control of perception. I just do
not believe the inner workings are the way they are currently laid out to be,
and when I say this people want me to produce a ‘counter’ model so here is a
diagram of my control model;

This is terrific Marc. Great progress.

Thanks

I won’t bother going into the details here but this is my ‘PCT’ model, and
yes I am modeling this in SD.

Excellent. I presume that you came up with this model to explain some
empirical observation(s) that could not be explained by the current PCT
model. Could you explain what those observations are? This would go a long
way toward showing how to test your model.

One step at a time. I posted on critical discussion. If you want to discuss my model I will do so only under the rules and conditions of critical discussion. If there is no desire on the part of CSGnet to take part in this I will be more than happy to do so privately with you, but I’m not going around the block with you any more in win/lose arguments. If both of us can’t walk away learning something then I’m not interested in participating in a discussion.

This my friends is simply a different way of viewing and understanding the
same control processes you like talking about here on CSGnet, Glasser likes
talking about in Reality Therapy, and what I like talking about in human
cognition

Well, there appear to be some significant differences between the model in
your diagram and the PCT model.

You bet, BIG
differences, glad you noticed.

The biggest difference, of course, is the
“world model” box. What is a “world model”? How does it work? What is it
there to explain?

All very good questions indeed.

The reference for what I presume is the perceptual signal
(the output of the “sensory input” box) comes from this world model. Why
does the world model specify the value of the perceptual signal?

Again, another excellent question.

That is, why does the world model care what the value of the perceptual signal is?

For the same reason a ‘comparator’ or ‘output’ function does.

Finally, is there some test I can do to demonstrate to myself that your
version of of the PCT model is superior to the current version?

Test for what? Superior in what way? I never said it was ‘superior’. What did I do or say to convey to you that I was presenting a superior model and that you should abandon the current PCT model for it?

What did I say that made you think I was presenting a ‘better’ model? I said I was presenting a different model. A different perspective.

I also said my diagram represented a teleological metaphor, not a circuit diagram as the PCT model is purported to be.

Rick, you really just don’t get it. I am not in competition with PCT, my model acknowledges and accepts the work done by many other people over many years, including yourself and Bill.

My model will always be incomplete and be a ‘work-in-progress’ because we will never have, with certainty, all the available knowledge no matter how long we work on it and no matter how many models we build and test.

You want me to disprove the PCT model and I have no desire to do that. You will have to decide whether I am ‘doing’ 'PCT" or something else, and frankly I could care less what you or Bill thinks.

I would much prefer to have us working together than I would alone, but it doesn’t seem like collaboration is something you and Bill are comfortable with unless it’s according to your set of rules.

Well, for my model it will be according to my set of rules, at least in part. I need to know how we will go about discussing this stuff before we discuss it.

I think what we need now are some equations describing the behavior of the
boxes in your diagram.

So you have done a fine job modeling theoretical control processes, and I applaud your fine efforts, but the question still remains; are these models located inside humans, and unfortunately your models cannot tell me that, no matter how many you do.
No, first you need to know what that diagram represents, then you need to know how I am going to collect the data to validate the model, and then you need to see the equations. Because it is only then that we can run the model and validate it empirically.

I’m not interested in making models I cannot validate with real world data.

So if you want to see equations only I will be happy to put you on my mailing list and get them to you as soon as I have them available.

Regards,

Marc

[From Bjorn Simonsen (2005.12.07,09:00 EUST)]

From [Marc Abrams (2005.12.06,1256)]
In fact, I know it is incomplete, and it will always be
incomplete. But I am looking to find out what is wrong
with my ideas so I can correct them, learn and try to
answer the other errors that are sure to be found.

From [Marc Abrams (2005.12.06.1845)

The way I read your model
is that you imagine the words you talk, at the
same time you talk them. Do it in your SD and I think you will get

problems.

If the model tells me that I some times imagine what to say, and other

times

say it, the model is just like the one I found in BCP at two different
pages.

I have no idea what you are trying to say here Bjorn. You
also might do far better trying to clarify and ask me what
I mean rather then sitting there with your crystal ball
trying to tell me what I think.

I am sorry. I should not say what you imagine. Of course I don't know what
you imagine. Sorry again.
I should rather ask what you think. What do you think when you look at your
graph?
When I look at your graph there is an Output Signal going to the
environments and also to the input function. I tried to put these
information into Rick's Spreadsheet, and I lost the negative feedback.
Then the model was not able to perceive what it wished to perceive.

Bjorn

Bjorn

From [Marc Abrams (2005.12.07.0635)]

In a message dated 12/7/2005 3:03:39 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, bjornsi@BROADPARK.NO writes:

···

[From Bjorn Simonsen (2005.12.07,09:00 EUST)]

I am sorry. I should not say what you imagine.

No, there is nothing wrong with assuming what I might be trying to say, the problems start when you take your assumptions as fact and obvious.

I should rather ask what you think. What do you think when you look at your
graph?

What graph? It is a metaphorical diagram.

Again, you make an assumption, treat it as fact and obvious and start with a false premise.

How can you draw good conclusions when your premises are false?

When I look at your graph there is an Output Signal going to the
environments and also to the input function. I tried to put these
information into Rick’s Spreadsheet, and I lost the negative feedback.
Then the model was not able to perceive what it wished to perceive.

Again, I’m not sure what you ‘plugged’ into Rick’s spreadsheet, but again, my diagram was not a circuit diagram. That is, it was not an attempt at modeling, it was a attempt to illustrate like a causal loop diagram.

Am not sure what your intent is here. Why are you making these assumptions about what my intentions are?

Again, no need to apologize. I get the feeling when you do this that you are more interested in finding fault with my ideas then you are in understanding them.

When I ask for criticism I hope to get constructive remarks. How can you provide constructive remarks when you have no idea what my ideas are yet?

Is there any specific reason you failed to answer my question at the end of my post?

I asked that question to see if you were genuinely interested in exploring some of my ideas, I guess your answer is no, huh?

Is my assumption correct?

Regards,

Marc

[From Bjorn Simonsen (2005.12.07,15:00EUST)]

From [Marc Abrams (2005.12.07.0635)]

I should rather ask what you think. What do you
think when you look at your graph?

What graph? It is a metaphorical diagram.

Do the metaphorical diagram propose the same information to WM and to E at
the same time?

Again, you make an assumption, treat it as fact and
obvious and start with a false premise.

I am only a human

How can you draw good conclusions when your
premises are false?

I can't answer that.

Am not sure what your intent is here. Why are you
making these assumptions about what my intentions are?

My intent was to formulate an argument to get the right answer from you. Of
course I could just have asked questions.

Again, no need to apologize. I get the feeling
when you do this that you are more interested
in finding fault with my ideas then you are in
understanding them.

Of course I am interested in what is fault with your metaphorical diagram.
But I will also understand the diagram.

When I ask for criticism I hope to get constructive
remarks. How can you provide constructive
remarks when you have no idea what my ideas are yet?

Well, I will try to give constructive remarks in the future. But I'll wait
till I understand your ideas better.

Is there any specific reason you failed to answer
my question at the end of my post?

I asked that question to see if you were genuinely
interested in exploring some of my ideas, I guess
your answer is no, huh?

Is my assumption correct?

If I am able to learn what your ideas are, I love to explore anything.

bjorn

From [Marc Abrams (2005.12.07.0939)]

In a message dated 12/7/2005 9:05:29 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, bjornsi@BROADPARK.NO writes:

···

[From Bjorn Simonsen (2005.12.07,15:00EUST)]

From [Marc Abrams (2005.12.07.0635)]

I should rather ask what you think. What do you
think when you look at your graph?

What graph? It is a metaphorical diagram.

Do the metaphorical diagram propose the same information to WM and to E at
the same time?

No, and certainly not to the same places. But this question is a land mine. All mathematics and hence all equations are instantaneous, which is one reason why delay’s must be introduced into any mathematical model purporting to represent anything happening through time. But being an SD modeler you already know this, so why play games with me?

It was your assumption that was wrong yet you still tried to push your error onto me by insisting my diagram was not metaphorical but a circuit diagram.

Are you willing to learn from your mistakes?

Again, you make an assumption, treat it as fact and
obvious and start with a false premise.

I am only a human

Yes, but once aware of it, if you had any concern for the other party you might realize you are prone to making premature judgements that are sometimes incorrect so it might be wise to check your assumptions. “I’m only human” is a lame excuse and one made to excuse any responsibility on your part for your actions.

How can you draw good conclusions when your
premises are false?

I can’t answer that.

Sure you can. The answer is you can’t draw any valid conclusions from invalid premises so don’t you think getting the premises 'right; is an important task and should not be left to speculation and untested assumptions?

Unlike PCT, I believe our actions are all very well crafted and we are highly skilled in implementing them. We are unfortunately also usually blind to the consequences of our behavior on others because our actions are intended to reduce error in ourselves and we are not much concerned with the fallout our actions have on others as long as we get to reduce our error.

Am not sure what your intent is here. Why are you
making these assumptions about what my intentions are?

My intent was to formulate an argument to get the right answer from you. Of
course I could just have asked questions.

Why not just ask questions? What benefit did you see in your approach? Maybe there is something I am not seeing and should be seeing, is there?

Again, no need to apologize. I get the feeling
when you do this that you are more interested
in finding fault with my ideas then you are in
understanding them.

Of course I am interested in what is fault with your metaphorical diagram.
But I will also understand the diagram.

Ok, here is a critical question; why are you interested in finding fault with my ideas? What do you stand to gain by finding fault with my ideas? Please think about this, and what would an understanding of my ideas provide to you?

When I ask for criticism I hope to get constructive
remarks. How can you provide constructive
remarks when you have no idea what my ideas are yet?

Well, I will try to give constructive remarks in the future. But I’ll wait
till I understand your ideas better.

Thank you and a wise choice

Is there any specific reason you failed to answer
my question at the end of my post?

I asked that question to see if you were genuinely
interested in exploring some of my ideas, I guess
your answer is no, huh?

Is my assumption correct?

If I am able to learn what your ideas are, I love to explore anything.

No, I think you might be a bit confused here. You will have to explore in order to understand my ideas. You seem to be asking for some kind of ‘finished’ theory and I can’t provide that.

This ‘exploration’ will not be finished in our lifetimes and probably not in those of the ten generations of Abrams’ and Simonsens’.

I am attempting to explore the nature of perceptual control in humans, I am not trying to validate any one particular theory or set of ideas.

My ideas come from, and will continue to come in the future from multiple sources, some of whom I am probably unaware of today. You live and learn as they say.

I feel extremely comfortable walking around knowing that whatever knowledge I do possess can be improved upon and the only way I can improve upon what I already know is by publicly testing my ideas.

As controllers, that is often not an easy thing to do because to some that exposes ‘weakness’, but I don’t. The only thing I try not to do is put myself into a position of being killed, anything else and I can regroup. :wink:

I hope we get to discuss the ideas I have and others have as well on CSGnet.

Regards,

Marc

[From Rick Marken (2005.12.07.1025)]

Marc Abrams (2005.12.05.1902)

First, and I am being very serious here, what else did you think I was
asking and why?

Sorry, your question was just a bit ungrammatical and I wanted to make sure
that I understood you correctly.

Rick Marken (2005.12.06.1530)

The concept of levels of control is based on several different observations
and tests. First is the observation that certain types of perceptions
depend on others but not vice versa.

As far as I understand it these 'observations' were the reflections of and
within a single individual. I have not 'observed' this to be true in me so
how may I observe this in others?

If you don't observe this in your own experience then it certainly cannot be
evidence of levels for you.

The literature that I have read on perceptions does not confirm these
concepts and ideas. Can you cite some other sources besides those of Powers,
that might help me understand this better?

There are some relevant references in my "Hierarchical Behavior of
Perception" paper that is reprinted in _More Mind Readings_. I think the
most relevant are Hubel/Wiesel (1979), Martin (1972), Palmer (1977), and
Povel (1981).

Second is the observation that the nervous system itself seems to be
organized hierarchically.

I can organize the nervous system(S) in any number of
structural types I desire depending on what I am interested in showing, and
this in fact has lead me to some of my confusion.

I agree. Then this cannot be evidence of levels for you.

So my question still remains, what does the hierarchy represent, structure
or function, and what data do you have to support this view?

The hierarchy is functional but Bill does point out (in B:CP) some possible
correlates of this proposed functional architecture to the structure of the
NS.

Third is the observation that control of some types of perceptions can be
done on a faster time scale than can control of other types of perceptions,

Ok, here your 'observations' are those of a model, not an individual and in
that model a 'perception' is represented by a simple 'signal', again have
you been able to validate this through physiological data? If not, what you
have 'data' on is a computer model not a human, so it might be a fine
theoretical piece of work but how can you validate this empirically?

We have confirmed this observation empirically by comparing the behavior of
a real person to that of a model. That's what I mean by empirical testing.
If you only consider empirical testing to be validation through
physiological data then our empirical tests will not be evidence of levels
for you either.

Fourth is the the observation that some controlling can be seen to be
temporally nested within the controlling done by other systems

Again, from a theoretical standpoint I applaud your effort. Where is the
empirical evidence?

It's in the comparison of human to model behavior. Again, if you don't
consider this empirical evidence then we are just playing in different
sandboxes, I guess.

Finally, we need hierarchical models to account for some phenomena.

No, you don't need a hierarchy, a network would do just fine

I would find that claim more interesting if you showed me the network model
that can do what was done with the hierarchical model.

If you want to discuss my model I will do so only under the rules and
conditions of critical discussion.

What are those rules?

Well, there appear to be some significant differences between the model in
your diagram and the PCT model.

You bet, BIG differences, glad you noticed.

The biggest difference, of course, is the
"world model" box. What is a "world model"? How does it work? What is it
there to explain?

All very good questions indeed.

Thanks. Got answers?

The reference for what I presume is the perceptual signal
(the output of the "sensory input" box) comes from this world model. Why
does the world model specify the value of the perceptual signal?

Again, another excellent question.

That is, why does the world model care what the value of the perceptual
signal is?

For the same reason a 'comparator' or 'output' function does.

Ok, this is an answer, but I don't quite understand it. I don't think of the
"comparator" and "output" functions as caring about what the value of the
perceptual signal is. What I was getting at was the fact that, in the
hierarchical PCT control model, it's the higher level systems that "care"
about the value of the lower level perceptual signal. The higher level
systems send references for the perceptions that lower level systems are to
produce so that those lower level systems will produce perceptions that make
the higher level perception be what the higher level system wants. It's not
clear in your model why the world model would want the perceptual input to
be a particular value because, as I recall from your diagram, the world
model never even gets the perceptual signal as input.

Finally, is there some test I can do to demonstrate to myself that your
version of of the PCT model is superior to the current version?

Test for what?

To compare the behavior of the model to the behavior of a living system.

What did I say that made you think I was presenting a 'better' model? I said
I was presenting a different model. A different perspective.

OK. I guess the only reason I can imagine for presenting a different model
is if 1) it predicts behavior better than the original 2) it predicts
behavior equally well but is more parsimonious than the original or 3) it is
precisely equivalent, behaviorally, to the original but givens insights into
the reasons for the behavior of the model that were not apparent in other
representations. Are you presenting your different model for one of these
reasons or for some other reason?

Rick, you really just don't get it. I am not in competition with PCT, my
model acknowledges and accepts the work done by many other people over many
years, including yourself and Bill.

You are absolutely right. I don't get it. What is it that you want from me?

You want me to disprove the PCT model and I have no desire to do that. You
will have to decide whether I am 'doing' 'PCT" or something else, and
frankly I could care less what you or Bill thinks.

Kind of makes it a waste of time, then, for me to tell you what I think
then, doesn't it?

I would much prefer to have us working together

Why do you want to work with me when you don't care what I think? What kind
of work did you have in mind?

I need to know how we will go about discussing this stuff before we
discuss it.

I guess I would like to go about having a critical discussion where we
discuss ideas critically but politely. But I don't understand why you would
even want to discuss this stuff with me at all if you don't care what I
think. I don't mind that you don't care what I think. But I do find it
peculiar that you would want to have a discussion with someone whose
thinking you care not about.

I'm not interested in making models I cannot validate with real world data.

I'm not either, though I think we may have a different idea of what it means
to validate a model with real world data.

Regards

Rick

···

--
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.

From [Marc Abrams (2005.12.07.1336)]

This will be my last response to Rick and I am going to use this post to show you why. I hope others learn from my misadventures as much as I do. :wink:

Rick provides a very good example in this post of how a human controller can be when faced with threats to that control, real or imagined.

In a message dated 12/7/2005 1:33:21 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, marken@MINDREADINGS.COM writes:

···

[From Rick Marken (2005.12.07.1025)]

Marc Abrams (2005.12.05.1902)

First, and I am being very serious here, what else did you think I was
asking and why?

Sorry, your question was just a bit ungrammatical and I wanted to make sure
hat I understood you correctly.

Rick, I asked you to explain yo me what was wrong because I wanted to be able to correct any mistakes I might have made.

How could I correct any mistakes with this answer?

I couldn’t and that was part of the reason he gave me this answer.

By doing this he stopped all discussion about it, because I might have disagreed with his assessment, so he walks away being ‘right’, even though he has not showed me why I should believe his claim should be believed.

If you don’t observe this in your own experience then it certainly cannot be
evidence of levels for you.

Right, so are you suggesting either Powers has magical powers or that PCT is not applicable to everyone?

The literature that I have read on perceptions does not confirm these
concepts and ideas. Can you cite some other sources besides those of

Powers, that might help me understand this better?

There are some relevant references in my “Hierarchical Behavior of
Perception” paper that is reprinted in More Mind Readings. I think the
most relevant are Hubel/Wiesel (1979), Martin (1972), Palmer (1977), and
Povel (1981).

Thanks, I’ll check them out.

I agree. Then this cannot be evidence of levels for you.

How can they be for you then?

The hierarchy is functional but Bill does point out (in B:CP) some possible
correlates of this proposed functional architecture to the structure of the
NS.

And has anyone in the past 35 years validated this claim from B:CP? If not why not?

We have confirmed this observation empirically by comparing the behavior of
a real person to that of a model.

But you seem to be taking this observation literally. That is, you devised one test, the tracking task, and generalized this to all human activity. I think that is a bit of a stretch.

Isn’t that a bit like going to a ball game and seeing someone throw a ball with their right hand and assume they are right handed only to find out later that they bat from the left side and do most of their other activities from the left?

That’s what I mean by empirical testing.

I am not suggesting that the tracking task is not empirical. I’m suggesting it is insufficient, no matter how many times you repeat it. You are ‘testing’ the same thing.

If you only consider empirical testing to be validation through
physiological data then our empirical tests will not be evidence of levels
for you either.

What other confirmation have you done besides the tracking task? I’m a tough customer to convince. You extrapolate and generalize a great deal from that simple experiment.

In fact it is so simple there is no need for emotions, or imagination to play any real part in it. So what you take away from this exercise is that emotions and imagination are not even required for purposeful behavior and I think that is absurd.

Just as absurd as saying you can reconstruct a cracked egg or that you travel in time because theoretically there is nothing from stopping you from doing such things.

PCT needs to be validated with a good deal more than a tracking task before people will take it seriously

It’s in the comparison of human to model behavior. Again, if you don’t
consider this empirical evidence then we are just playing in different
sandboxes, I guess.

No, your tracking task is not sufficient ‘proof’ that PCT is an accurate theory.

No, you don’t need a hierarchy, a network would do just fine

I would find that claim more interesting if you showed me the network model
that can do what was done with the hierarchical model.

I don’t need to show you a network model since a hierarchy is a specific type of network. That is, whatever you can do in a hierarchy you can do in a network, the only difference is the dependencies. A hierarchy is a linear representation of a network.

What are those rules?

I said I was going to send you a communications method I felt would help everyone communicate better without the usual fallout but I was mistaken in that notion. The rules are meaningless without the spirit being there and there is no way you would benefit from them, my mistake, sorry.

Thanks. Got answers?

For what purpose?

Ok, this is an answer, but I don’t quite understand it. I don’t think of the
“comparator” and “output” functions as caring about what the value of the
perceptual signal is. What I was getting at was the fact that, in the
hierarchical PCT control model, it’s the higher level systems that “care”
about the value of the lower level perceptual signal.

And in a hierarchy they better ‘care’ because they don’t exist without the lower levels. So I guess another way of talking about this is as a necessary condition of existence. Just like I said to Erling the other day.

But my diagram provides no insights into exactly what these necessary conditions might be and what the actual components might be.

But it seems you have difficult time with my grammar, so I can understand your confusion. But like Bjorn, you might be better served with a little less hubris and a bit more inquisitiveness.

My model complements the current PCT model. It is a look at control from a higher level of abstraction, like I have been saying all along and you seemingly ignoring. By higher level I do not mean a higher PCT level.

I may not be a wonderful writer but I’m not half as bad as you wish I was.

The higher level
systems send references for the perceptions that lower level systems are to
produce so that those lower level systems will produce perceptions that make
he higher level perception be what the higher level system wants.

At my level of abstraction ‘levels’ do not exist. Things are connected through a series of networks, some of which might be hierarchical in nature. That is, networks with dependent linear ties.

It’s not
clear in your model why the world model would want the perceptual input to
be a particular value because, as I recall from your diagram, the world
model never even gets the perceptual signal as input.

An excellent insight and an important one. I am truly sorry you are more concerned with protecting what you already believe to be true than you are in possibly learning something new.

But you knew that, right?

To compare the behavior of the model to the behavior of a living system.

When my model is done this question will be fully explained and I will be happy to share it with you.
I have no data, nor do I have a model yet, but all this was made very plain and clear. Another grammar problem, huh?

I have some basic ideas and some tools for some exploration. You seem to be fixated on a strawman hunt so have some fun, I’m not interested.

I really believe you cannot help yourself and I think that is unfortunate for both you and me.

If possible I would certainly want you on my team, but you carry to much baggage you are unwilling to look at and get rid of. None of it has to do with control by the way.

And here it comes folks the reason that Rick and I will never be able to have any kind of a legitimate discussion on perceptual control.

What did I say that made you think I was presenting a ‘better’ model? I said
I was presenting a different model. A different perspective.
OK. I guess the only reason I can imagine for presenting a different model
is if 1) it predicts behavior better than the original 2) it predicts
behavior equally well but is more parsimonious than the original or 3) it is
precisely equivalent, behaviorally, to the original but givens insights into
the reasons for the behavior of the model that were [was] not apparent in other
representations. Are you presenting your different model for one of these
reasons or for some other reason?

My , my, check my bracketed correction above to your grammar, hope it helps. I usually don’t correct the spelling or grammar of others, I find it rude.

Ok, so first of all, and this goes back to your response on my system dynamics post, you believe I am trying to present a ‘superior’ model to usurp PCT, even though I continually explained that I wasn’t.

Now you provide three reasons why anyone would present a different model and then ask me if it is one of the three or a different one is my intent.

What I don’t understand is why you would believe anything I said now that you have completely ignored or dismissed over the past two days everything I have said?

You have not posted to clarify, which is what I was hoping you would do, or try to understand why I think the way I do, instead you come back chasing after windmills and making gross assumptions about things you are completely ignorant about.

I am not presenting any finished model, nor was it my intention to do so. I presented a set of ideas that might be worth exploring if you are interested in control at a higher level of abstraction than that of the current PCT model.

But you have not seen this. What you seem to have seen is a very myopic and paranoid view of someone trying to usurp PCT.

But this is not something new here on CSGnet is it? Unfortunately I have seen this type of self destructive behavior for the past 14 years.

Rick, you are not a bad person and at this point I’m not even angry, just very sad.

I will attempt to use a poor analogy here. We can ‘understand’ a TV show from many different perspectives. An electrical engineer will have the one perspective, a camera man another and an actor still another. They all understand different aspects of the ‘TV’ business. Control is no different. You have control at the cellular level, body systems level, organism and of course the effects between controllers.

If the PCT hierarchy represents our nervous system than it does not represent the control that might take place in regulating our blood sugar which is directly related to how hungry we feel, and the eating patterns we each have.

My point here is that an engineer need not also be a camera man and actor and the current PCT model need not account for all perspectives on control

You are absolutely right. I don’t get it. What is it that you want from me?

Nothing, what I want I can’t have and I will not ask you to do something you seem incapable of doing. But I will tell you what I would want if I could get it.

  1. Your respect, not tolerance as you define it, for the ideas that I and others hold. That is, I want you to treat the words out of my mouth and Ken Kitzke’s mouth in the same vein you would want others to treat your words.
  1. For you to be able to look in the mirror and admit that you are not perfect and that you can acknowledge and are wiling to address your ignorance.
  1. Be influenceable in any discussions you are in. That is, to be able to agree on a set of data or criteria that would make it justifiable for you to change your beliefs about something.

Think about this for a minute. Why would anyone want to talk with you when you are only willing to advocate your position and are unwilling to be influenced by them unwilling to allow inquiry into your thinking.

Because of this every ‘discussion’ with you turns into a win/lose slugfest and everyone walks away with much less knowledge than possible and sometimes angry.

Why do you think people don’t post on this list?

That’s about it, and I know I can’t get any of it because you seem much to insecure to provide it. It actually takes some courage to allow yourself to ‘fail’ in public and as controllers we fight like hell to avoid it, but controlling does not always provide the ‘right’ thing when cooperation between other folk is essential.

Something your tracking task provides no insight into. I don’t need control theory to know that when pushed someone else will push back

You want me to disprove the PCT model and I have no desire to do that. You
will have to decide whether I am ‘doing’ 'PCT" or something else, and
frankly I could care less what you or Bill thinks.

Kind of makes it a waste of time, then, for me to tell you what I think
then, doesn’t it?

Sure, if you feel all you can contribute is the advocacy of your position and not have anyone inquire into your set of beliefs.

Frankly, that is all I think you are capable of currently doing so I do indeed think it a waste of our time to try to work together until that changes.

I would much prefer to have us working together

Why do you want to work with me when you don’t care what I think? What kind
of work did you have in mind?

Why do you think the only reason I would want to work with you is to hear the advocacy of your position?

I need to know how we will go about discussing this stuff before we
discuss it.

I guess I would like to go about having a critical discussion where we
discuss ideas critically but politely.

Yes, I think we all would, but somehow even with the best intentions by all, this never quite happens, and there is a good reason for it and it is called control.

In fact this is one of the main focuses of my modeling effort; interpersonal transactions, with a heavy emphasis in economics, microeconomics to you.

But I don’t understand why you would
even want to discuss this stuff with me at all if you don’t care what I
think. I don’t mind that you don’t care what I think. But I do find it
peculiar that you would want to have a discussion with someone whose
thinking you care not about.

What I don’t care about is whether you feel I am infringing on or competing with PCT and it is all too obvious that you believe I am, and as long as you believe this nonsense, you will always react to me and my ideas like poison, so no, I’m not currently interested in working with you under these circumstances and I wish you believed otherwise, but that seems very unlikely given my posts and your responses to them.

I’m not interested in making models I cannot validate with real world data.

I’m not either, though I think we may have a different idea of what it means
to validate a model with real world data.

Yes, we do have different ideas about it, and even that seems to be undiscussable with you.

I truly wish things were different.

Regards,

Marc