PCT and Values

CSGnet Archive CSG2004
1

ate: Fri, 5 Nov 2004 13:59:15 -0800 Reply-To: "Control Systems Group Network
(CSGnet)"
[From Rick Marken (2004.11.08.1430)]

I can't seem to find any existing study where there was a measure of the
time to identify the instance given the category and the time to identify
the category given the instance. The closest I can get is studies that
compare RT to identify the instance (picture) with the category (word) vs
the time to identify the name of the instance (word) with the category
(word). But the latter is really just identifying a category with a category
so we don't know if it really would be faster to identify the instance given
the category. I guess I'll have to develop the experiment myself.

While I wait for me to do that, I thought it might be fun (and pertinent),
given the recent election results, to discuss "values" or "morals" from a
PCT perspective. Apparently, those who believe in what are called
"absolute" or "God given" values were the margin of victory in the
presidential election. This suggests what I think are some interesting
questions for those of us interested in understanding human nature from a
PCT perspective:

1. What are values in PCT?

2. Where do values come from in PCT?

3. Are there absolutely right and wrong values in PCT?

Best 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.

2

[From Bjorn Simonsen (2004.11.09.12:15 EST)]

From Rick Marken (2004.11.08.1430)

1. What are values in PCT?

I think values are principles. I also think values (principles) get their
references from the system concept level.

2. Where do values come from in PCT?

We create our values in the same way as other principles are created, by
reorganizing.
These values are references when we make our choices (program level) and it
is practical if we have systems of values that harmonize. If not we often
will experience conflicts.

3. Are there absolutely right and wrong values in PCT?

PCT describes how living organisms behave. PCT doesn't tell us what is
right and what is wrong. But PCT tells us that it is not propitious if a
perception is duplicated to different loops where the references (values)
are contrary.

Apparently, those who believe in what are called
"absolute" or "God given" values were the margin of victory in the
presidential election. This suggests what I think are some interesting
questions for those of us interested in understanding human nature from a
PCT perspective:

What did the American people control in the presidential election? Nobody
can tell us that. Everybody controlled the perceptions they controlled. And
the consequences of their voter participation contributed to make the errors
in their control loops like zero. I don't think all American controlled a
value (principle level) when they voted, I think many voters controlled at
the relationship level. I also think that the idea that American voters
controlled a value perception is a relationship level control many
journalists controlled after the election. Also Norwegian journalists did
that.
Journalists most often control at the relationship level, I think.

I can't seem to find any existing study where there was a measure of the
time to identify the instance given the category and the time to identify
the category given the instance. The closest I can get is studies that
compare RT to identify the instance (picture) with the category (word) vs
the time to identify the name of the instance (word) with the category
(word). But the latter is really just identifying a category with a

category

so we don't know if it really would be faster to identify the instance

given

the category. I guess I'll have to develop the experiment myself.

Also I work with an experiment. I need some comments and will make another
mail later today.

Bjorn

3

[From Rick Marken (2004.11.09.0855)]

David Goldstein (2004.11.08.2123)--

Values are Principle level perceptions.

I think values are the reference states of principle _and_ rule perceptions.
When we say we value "honesty", say, I think we are implicitly saying that
we believe we should maintain a particular reference for a principle-type
perceptual variable that ranges from "honesty is for saps" to "honesty is
the best policy". The implication is that the reference should be set at or
near "honesty is the best policy".

Values are built from lower level perceptions just like any other principle
level perception.

That's true if you think of values as the perceptual variable itself. I
think of values as references so their source, according to PCT, would be
higher level control systems. The references for rules (like "thou shalt not
have sex with children" which I think is an unfortunate omission from the 10
commandments) would come from the higher level systems controlling for
principles like "'tis excellent to have a giant's strength but 'tis
tyrannous to use it as a giant"; the references for principles would come
from higher level systems controlling for system concepts (perceptions of
the kind of person you want to be).

By definition, Values of a religious Sytem level perception seem to be
absolute.

I agree that values are treated as absolute (fixed and unchanging,
regardless of circumstance) by religious people. But PCT shows that this
cannot possibly be the case. References for rules and principles must change
to achieve higher level goals, and we see this kind of change in the
commonly observed hypocritical behavior of self-proclaimed values
absolutists.

Best 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.

4

[From Rick Marken (2004.11.09.0930)]

Bjorn Simonsen (2004.11.09.12:15 EST)--

I think values are principles. I also think values (principles) get their
references from the system concept level.

Again, I think "values" refers to the references for principle and rule-type
perceptual _variables_.

2. Where do values come from in PCT?

We create our values in the same way as other principles are created, by
reorganizing.

I think values, as references, are varied by higher level systems as needed
in order to achieve the goals of the higher level system. Reorganization is
not necessary for most of the variations (changes) in values that we see.
For example, the reference for how we should treat others (a value such as
"love thy neighbor") changes rather abruptly when our neighbor starts doing
things that hurt us.

3. Are there absolutely right and wrong values in PCT?

PCT describes how living organisms behave. PCT doesn't tell us what is
right and what is wrong.

I think PCT does tell us what is right and what is wrong. What is right is a
perception that matches our reference for that perception; what is wrong is
a perception that does not match the reference. Same applies to the setting
of references. A "right" reference setting is one that decreases error in
the higher level control system for which is is an output; a "wrong"
reference setting is one that increases error in the higher level system.

What did the American people control in the presidential election? Nobody
can tell us that.

I think they can get a pretty good idea by just asking why they voted as
they did in the exist polls.

I don't think all American controlled a value (principle level) when
they voted

I think they all did. I certainly did. But "values" mean different things to
different people because people have different references for certain rules
and principles. The balance of the vote for Bush came from people whose
values, from their point of view, matched those of Bush. This is a very
disappointing result from the perspective of people like myself, whose
values (references for rules and principles) seem to differ so thoroughly
from those of Bush. I think this difference in values results from the fact
that Bush and his admirers seem to be controlling for very different system
concepts than me and my admirers. And I think that system concept might be
called "curiosity" or "inquisitiveness". I like to think of myself as
curious about how it all works. I think Bush and his admirers want to think
of themselves as knowing it all (or, at least, all they need to know)
already. I don't think there is much one can do to change people at that
level. I can't imagine myself wanting to be less curious and I can't imagine
Bush and his bunch becoming inquisitive. The best we can do, I think, is to
try to get along without causing each other too much disturbance.

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.

5

[From Bjorn Simonsen (2004.11.09,20:40 EST)]

From Rick Marken (2004.11.09.0930)

>Bjorn Simonsen (2004.11.09.12:15 EST)--

>I think values are principles. I also think values (principles) get their
>references from the system concept level.

Again, I think "values" refers to the references for principle and

rule-type

perceptual _variables_.

Do you perceive any references? Do you control any references? Or do I
misunderstand you?
I think as Bill says in B:CP (170) that "perceiving honesty ( a value) is to
accept that principle as a tenth-order reference level which in turn implies
governing one's behavior to prove continually that honesty is in fact a
principle that is perceivable in one's lower-order behaviors".

2. Where do values come from in PCT?
We create our values in the same way as other principles are created, by
reorganizing.

I think values, as references, are varied by higher-level systems as needed
in order to achieve the goals of the higher level system. Reorganization is
not necessary for most of the variations (changes) in values that we see.
For example, the reference for how we should treat others (a value such as
"love thy neighbor") changes rather abruptly when our neighbor starts doing
things that hurt us.

I still think values are principles. I think many people wish to behave
honest. I think some of them also are able to wish "not to tell the truth".
What they control depends on their situation. PCT doesn't explain our
behavior in a sequentially way (your own words in APS1986). "If you hurt me,
I will not love you". PCT explains behavior as a continuous change of many
variables and I think it is too easy to describe an action and explain it
relative to different relationship we self control.

3. Are there absolutely right and wrong values in PCT?
PCT describes how living organisms behave. PCT doesn't tell us what is

>right and what is wrong.

I think PCT does tell us what is right and what is wrong. What is right is

a

perception that matches our reference for that perception; what is wrong is
a perception that does not match the reference. Same applies to the setting
of references. A "right" reference setting is one that decreases error in
the higher level control system for which is is an output; a "wrong"
reference setting is one that increases error in the higher level system.

I see it different. You say that PCT describes how some perceptions don't
match our reference for that perception. You answered the question: "Are
there absolutely right and wrong values in PCT _for me_." I answered the
question: "Are there absolutely right or wrong values in PCT _for all
people_ and _for all time_".

Bjorn

6

How does PCT handle values vs. behavior? When ASKED most people will state
they hold being honest as being a moral value. The BEHAVIOR of most people
is to take liberties when filing their income tax returns, or tell someone
they look good when we really don't believe it.

A big issue in the states is family values. Without benefit of being able
to cite a study I'm going to claim that most American will say premarital
sex is not moral. Yet very few couples enter into marriage as virgins.
They say they hold family values as a high moral standard, while 50% will
divorce.

Clearly our values don't match our behaviors. It seems our values are more
than simple references which govern behavior.

7

[From Bill Powers (2004.11.10.0756 MST)]

Steve O (2004.11.10) [-- please use our standard name-date-time format]

Clearly our values don't match our behaviors. It seems our values are more
than simple references which govern behavior.

Reference signals do not govern behaviors in PCT. They specify the states
of perceptions which we try to achieve by varying our behavior as necessary
(depending on the state of the world).

Values in the moral-principle sense can conflict with built-in needs, like
the need for sex. People vary greatly in how they resolve the conflict, but
normally the built-in need wins by one means or another because when not
satisfied it can cause reorganization to start, and reorganization can
change any aspect of the brain's hierarchy, including moral principles.

Best,

Bill P.

···

At 07:29 AM 11/10/2004, you wrote:

8

[From Kenny Kitzke (2004.11.10)]

<Rick Marken (2004.11.08.1430)>

<I thought it might be fun (and pertinent), given the recent election results, to discuss “values” or “morals” from a PCT perspective. Apparently, those who believe in what are called “absolute” or “God given” values were the margin of victory in the presidential election.>

Unapparently, it is mere speculation that such voters provided the margin of victory.

I do know there were voters for President Bush who held an ethical belief reference perception that partial birth abortion is murder. Some of them may have used this belief as the pivotal reason/purpose why they voted for Bush instead of Senator Kerry. Kerry had voted several times to support this murder of an innocent human baby, inches and minutes away from life (under anyone’s definition of when life begins) and would have rights protected under our Constitution.

Whether that issue, tax cuts, terrorism, Iraq, etc., provided the margin of victory, I don’t think anyone can say?

Count me in as one who is interested in understanding human nature. Count me in as one who sees PCT as providing a perspective about human nature.

<1. What are values in PCT?>

In general, values in PCT would best relate to the reference signals. They are what we “want.” What level in the human perceptual hierarchy a “value” resides seems dependent on its specifics. A soft drink value reference (such as Coke or Pepsi?), is probably at a lower level than a decision on having a partial birth abortion.

<2. Where do values come from in PCT?>

The reference signals in PCT at any level come from the next higher level control loop.

As I mentioned in Chicago during my presentation, “A Missing Link in PCT/HPCT,” this model works pretty well EXCEPT for from where do the reference signals for the highest level come?

Is there a better answer from HPCT than from the rather mysterious, hypothesized “Reorganization System?”

Until HPCT has more credible and tested evidence about whether such a system actually exists in humans and how it works, I contend, HPCT will remain somewhat buried under the avalanche of other popular theories of human behavior and nature.

<3. Are there absolutely right and wrong values in PCT?>

Absolutely not. This is very important in understanding human behavior, including what takes place in a voting booth. It should help propel the value of PCT!

However, humans each make their own choices of right and wrong values to hold as references. They do not appear to be absolute in any sense. They change over time and circumstances.

Again, how this all takes place and why (naturally) in humans are areas that further research into PCT/HPCT may someday reveal. It may one day be as clear as how one actually catches a baseball! Hooray for Rick!

In Chicago, I speculated about the human spirit, some sort of function within our human brain (different from what some call the conscious mind) that enables us to make selections of right or wrong references or values for ourselves. This function (Bill Powers likened it to the human conscience) remains somewhat mysterious, sharing an attribute with the PCT proposed Reorganization System.

As a Christian, I have obtained some bias and understanding about this unique human capacity to determine right or wrong. But, it does not take any belief in God, or God given absolute values for men, to acknowledge that there is something special and powerful in the nature of humans that goes beyond other living things.

Even Immanuel Kant (I believe he was an atheist) wrote about ethics (this is very different from morality, of course). He suggested life for humans would be good if they followed just one rule as their categorical imperative. That rule is: Always act as you think anyone ought to act in the same situation, WITHOUT thinking of your own wishes or interests.

This “Oughtness” is very similar to what a Bible believer would call the Golden Rule. But, I doubt that neither Kant’s Categorical Imperative nor the Bible’s Golden Rule will ever be followed completely by man. Evidence abounds that it is next to impossible for man to do so perfectly. It is our nature not to do so.

And I think PCT/HPCT explains that too. We can’t act without thinking of our own wishes, interests, wants and values. We are hard wired to not do that while still alive.

Thanks for raising the issue, Rick.

9

[From Rick Marken (2004.11.10.0750)]

Bjorn Simonsen (2004.11.09,20:40 EST)--

I think as Bill says in B:CP (170) that "perceiving honesty ( a value) is to
accept that principle as a tenth-order reference level which in turn implies
governing one's behavior to prove continually that honesty is in fact a
principle that is perceivable in one's lower-order behaviors".

Right. I'd say your "value" is the reference for level you adopt for the
principle perception. You then act to try to perceive that reference level
of principle.

I still think values are principles.

That's fine. It's just that a lot of people also refer to their values as
references for rules, also rules like "gays should not be allowed to marry"
and "thou shalt not kill".

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.

10

[From Rick Marken (2004.11.10.0830)]

Kenny Kitzke (2004.11.10)--

I do know there were voters for President Bush who held an ethical belief
reference perception that partial birth abortion is murder... Kerry had
voted several times to support this murder of an innocent human baby,
inches and minutes away from life...and would have rights protected
under our Constitution.

I think this is a good example of why the values issue may be a little too
complex for Bush and his supporters and should be left to us intellectual
elites;-). There is a values _conflict_ here: if you don't abort the fetus
because you value it's life you kill the mother; if you save the mother
because you value her life you kill the fetus. Just as those voting to allow
partial birth abortion are voting against the rights of the fetus to live,
those voting to prohibit partial birth abortion are voting against the
rights of the mother to live.

There is a clear conflict of values here and such conflicts, as you know,
cannot be solved by reasoning or clever talk. You just have to go up a level
and determine what kind of world you want to live in; what kind of tragedy,
in this case, you are willing to accept. Senator Kerry and I want to live in
a world where the tragic decision regarding whether to save the mother or
the child is made by someone who knows all the facts; the medical history of
mother and child, the likelihood of survival of mother and child, etc. In
other words, I want a world where such decisions are made by those who are
in the best position to make them -- the doctor and the mother, in this
case.

<3. Are there absolutely right and wrong values in PCT?>

Absolutely not.

I agree.

However, humans each make their own choices of right and wrong values to hold
as references. They do not appear to be absolute in any sense. They change
over time and circumstances.

Again, how this all takes place and why (naturally) in humans are areas that
further research into PCT/HPCT may someday reveal. It may one day be as clear
as how one actually catches a baseball! Hooray for Rick!

Thanks. I actually think that models like that for catching a baseball give
us a very good idea about how control is done at the higher levels -- such
as control of "values" perceptions. Control is control, after all.

it does not take any belief
in God, or God given absolute values for men, to acknowledge that there is
something special and powerful in the nature of humans that goes beyond other
living things.

I completely agree. All it takes is some clever testing for controlled
variables. My intuition is that only humans can perceive and control at the
level of rules, principles and system concepts (assuming those perceptual
levels pan out). I think there is some evidence that apes may be able to
perceive and control in terms of rules and, perhaps, even principles (like
fairness - I think we had this discussion some time ago), which would not be
surprising since they are our ancestors.

Thanks for raising the issue, Rick.

You're welcome.

RSM

···

--
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.

11

[From Bjorn Simonsen (2004.11.12.10:55 EST)]

From Bill Powers (2004.11.10.0756 MST)

Values in the moral-principle sense can conflict with built-in needs, like
the need for sex. People vary greatly in how they resolve the conflict, but
normally the built-in need wins by one means or another because when not
satisfied it can cause reorganization to start, and reorganization can
change any aspect of the brain's hierarchy, including moral principles.

It isn't often I see the concept "need " put to use in the PCT debate. I
haven't seen it before. I can imagine what you think upon. And you
mentioned the concept "need for sex". I know too little about physiology,
but I know the level of testosterone is important. It releases the
luteinizing hormone from the anterior lobe of the pituitary gland, which in
turn is controlled by the release of GnRH from hypothalamus. A rising level
of testosterone suppresses the release of GnRH from the hypothalamus.
This control is a negative control-loop just as the one you mentioned last
summer about the pituitary that generates the Thyroid-Stimulating Hormone,
which travels to the thyroid gland (bloodstream). The thyroid gland
releases thyroxin that enters the pituitary (bloodstream). The thyroxin
inhibits the production of TSH.
I don't see any differences between the control loops in the somatic and the
autonomic nervous system. They both represent negative feedback loops. This
is the way I see it, and I may be wrong.
When we use the concept "need" we include emotions that are just other
control loops often including glands.
But I think man can control perceptions in the autonomic nervous system as
we can control perceptions in the somatic nervous system. One example is our
control of blood pressure in a mental way or in a more complicated way of
changing the way of life.
It looks like people resolve their conflicts in a way where the "built-in
needs" wins. But maybe so few of us are willing to wish (what we all can
do) strong enough to perceive certain values or moral principles that
reorganizing can change also aspects of the autonomic nervous system.
Am I wrong?

Bjorn

12

[From Rick Marken (2004.11.12.0900)]

Bjorn Simonsen (2004.11.12.10:55 EST)

I don't see any differences between the control loops in the somatic and the
autonomic nervous system. They both represent negative feedback loops.

I think this is correct; control is control.

It looks like people resolve their conflicts in a way where the "built-in
needs" wins. But maybe so few of us are willing to wish (what we all can
do) strong enough to perceive certain values or moral principles that
reorganizing can change also aspects of the autonomic nervous system.
Am I wrong?

I think the reason that the built in needs eventually win when a conflict is
because the references for the variables controlled by these "need" systems
are not varied by higher level systems. So there is no "up a level" solution
to the need for sex or food, for example.

Remember that the only way to actually solve a conflict (according to PCT)
is to change what you _want_ (change the reference for one or all of the
systems in conflict). To do this you have to be able to do this mysterious
thing called "going up a level", so that you see things from the point of
view of the systems that are in a position to change the references for the
conflicted systems. But the sex and food input control systems are
presumably _intrinsic_ systems, with references set ultimately by the genes.

I think you can put yourself into a conflict with the sex and food control
systems and win the conflict, for a while at least (permanently in the case
of food if you manage to starve yourself to death). But in these cases,
where you win by "force of will" the conflict is still in effect, as
evidenced by the fact that there is always some error in the intrinsic need
system. For example, people who successfully win out over their need for
food through dieting are always feeling the pangs of error in the food
control system, which still wants more input that the diet control system is
allowing.

It's possible, however, the the intrinsic reference for food and sex will
change if you fight against them long enough. For example, I have met people
who have dieted and managed to keep the weight off for years, with no
apparent distress after the first year or so. It may be that the constant
error in the food control system that is created by dieting actually leads
to reorganization that changes the intrinsic reference for food. But this
kind of change seems rare. I have met far more cases of people who have
successfully dieted for quite a long time but eventually returned to their
original weight.

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.

13

[From Bill Powers (2004.11.12.1115 MST)]

Rick Marken (2004.11.12.0900)--

I especially like this paragraph (though the whole post is very clear):

Remember that the only way to actually solve a conflict (according to PCT)
is to change what you _want_ (change the reference for one or all of the
systems in conflict). To do this you have to be able to do this mysterious
thing called "going up a level", so that you see things from the point of
view of the systems that are in a position to change the references for the
conflicted systems. But the sex and food input control systems are
presumably _intrinsic_ systems, with references set ultimately by the genes.

In a way, the built-in needs and the reorganizing system are to the learned
hierarchy as the external environment is to the whole hierarchy. Our bodies
have inherited properties and control systems which are not "intelligent,"
but which behave in ways with which we, the conscious learning entities,
have to learn to work. And through "feelings", the built-in systems
communicate to us whether the physical organism is happy with its state. We
are so organized that we recognize these signals as requiring action: we
seek pleasure and avoid pain, whether voluntarily or not. And if we don't
do that voluntarily, we get reorganized involuntarily until we do (or die).

Best,

Bill P.

14

Hello all it has been a long time since I made a post – so please excuse any format errors…

I am still using PCT in practice. I sometimes check in and read what is happening and this post peaked my interest.

In a message dated 11/12/2004 10:03:43 A.M. US Mountain Standard Tim, marken@MINDREADINGS.COM writes:

Remember that the only way to actually solve a conflict (according to PCT)
is to change what you want (change the reference for one or all of the
systems in conflict). To do this you have to be able to do this mysterious
thing called “going up a level”, so that you see things from the point of
view of the systems that are in a position to change the references for the
conflicted systems. But the sex and food input control systems are
presumably intrinsic systems, with references set ultimately by the genes.

It seems that this has been said before (but in fewer words :)-

“Problems cannot be solved at the same level of awareness that created them.”

  • Albert Einstein

(before Rick’s ego gets any bigger, or anyone gets offended, let me just say I am not comparing Marken to Einstein)

For those who do not know me and what I do - let me explain. I have been a crisis counselor for the past 10 years. One of many things I noticed is … crisis is forced reorganization, the system has crashed, what you are doing IS not working, right wrong or indifferent a change must happen. Everyone goes up – not just a level – but to the top level. You hear a lot of “I can not …”, “I will not…”, “I must…” “I will…” you do not hear much of “It can not …”, “It will not…”, “It must…” “It will…”

When a person is in crisis,

99% of the time, the person’s problem is …they don’t have any friends or family or

they do. (once you determined which, the next is…) They did not get something they wanted or they got something they definitely did not want.

It is not just what happens to the person, but what happened compared to what they expected to have happen which determines the extent of the crisis.

This is a quote I like on the subject - Reorganization

Any transition serious enough
to alter your definition of self
will require not just small adjustments
in your way of living and thinking
but a full-on metamorphosis.
-Martha Beck

15

In a message dated 11/10/2004 11:39:08 AM Eastern Standard Time, marken@MINDREADINGS.COM writes:

···

[From Rick Marken (2004.11.10.0830)]

Kenny Kitzke (2004.11.10)–

I do know there were voters for President Bush who held an ethical belief
reference perception that partial birth abortion is murder… Kerry had
voted several times to support this murder of an innocent human baby,
inches and minutes away from life…and would have rights protected
under our Constitution.

I think this is a good example of why the values issue may be a little too
complex for Bush and his supporters and should be left to us intellectual
elites;-). There is a values conflict here: if you don’t abort the fetus
because you value it’s life you kill the mother; if you save the mother
because you value her life you kill the fetus. Just as those voting to allow
partial birth abortion are voting against the rights of the fetus to live,
those voting to prohibit partial birth abortion are voting against the
rights of the mother to live.

There is a clear conflict of values here and such conflicts, as you know,
cannot be solved by reasoning or clever talk. You just have to go up a level
and determine what kind of world you want to live in; what kind of tragedy,
in this case, you are willing to accept. Senator Kerry and I want to live in
a world where the tragic decision regarding whether to save the mother or
the child is made by someone who knows all the facts; the medical history of
mother and child, the likelihood of survival of mother and child, etc. In
other words, I want a world where such decisions are made by those who are
in the best position to make them – the doctor and the mother, in this
case.

<3. Are there absolutely right and wrong values in PCT?>

Absolutely not.

I agree.

However, humans each make their own choices of right and wrong values to hold
as references. They do not appear to be absolute in any sense. They change
over time and circumstances.

Again, how this all takes place and why (naturally) in humans are areas that
further research into PCT/HPCT may someday reveal. It may one day be as clear
as how one actually catches a baseball! Hooray for Rick!

Thanks. I actually think that models like that for catching a baseball give
us a very good idea about how control is done at the higher levels – such
as control of “values” perceptions. Control is control, after all.

it does not take any belief
in God, or God given absolute values for men, to acknowledge that there is
something special and powerful in the nature of humans that goes beyond other
living things.

I completely agree. All it takes is some clever testing for controlled
variables. My intuition is that only humans can perceive and control at the
level of rules, principles and system concepts (assuming those perceptual
levels pan out). I think there is some evidence that apes may be able to
perceive and control in terms of rules and, perhaps, even principles (like
fairness - I think we had this discussion some time ago), which would not be
surprising since they are our ancestors.

Thanks for raising the issue, Rick.

You’re welcome.

RSM

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.