Perception or Reference

CSGnet Archive CSG2006
1

[From Rick Marken (2006.08.04.1100)]

Here is a recent statement made by Condoleza Rice, who, believe it or not, is the US Secretary of State.

"I'll stack up [my] policy in the Middle East against any," she said. "I think we have made more progress under this president toward a Middle East that will be different and better than at any other time in recent memory."

But it looks to me like the Middle East is in far worse shape than it has been in years. I'm wondering whether the difference between Condi's evaluation of the Middle East situation and my own is a difference between us in terms of perceptions or references.

  I don't think Condi and I actually perceive things differently; I think we both are capable of seeing the death of innocents and destruction of infrastructure in the same way. So perhaps we are looking at different dimensions of our perceptions. For example, she may be basing her conclusion on the perception of Saddam having been overthrown while ignoring other perceptions, like the anti-US insurgency, sectarian violence, Hamas victory in Palestine, war with Hezbolla, destruction of Lebanon, etc. So the difference between Condi and me may be in the _dimensions_ of perception that we use to evaluate how things are going in the Middle East (the evaluation being done relative to references that are similar in both of us). She looks at and evaluates only one dimension (the Saddam deposed dimension) and I look at and evaluate more than one (which includes the death and destruction dimensions).

But the difference between us could be based on our having different references for the same perceptions. It may be that we are both perceiving the same things, including the killing of innocents and the destruction of Lebanon, but that these perceptions match her references for what constitutes things getting better in the Middle East while they don't match mine.

A third possibility is that Condi is hallucinating; using her imagination to "perceive" what no one else can perceive: a Middle East on the brink of peace and cooperation.

Of course, a fourth possibility is that she is lying through her teeth: that she, like me, sees that things aren't getting anything like better in the Middle East but won't say so. But this couldn't be right because Republicans don't lie. Only Democrats lie -- and about really terrible things like whether or not they got blow jobs from someone other than their wife. Thank goodness that we have an honest, moral administration in office during this time of crisis;-)

Best

Rick

···

---
Richard S. Marken Consulting
marken@mindreadings.com
Home 310 474-0313
Cell 310 729-1400

2

[From Bryan Thalhammer (2006.08.04.1325 CDT)]

Rick,

She is deluded. I am not sure what she and all the rest are controlling, except for avoiding their eventual prosecution. In all sincerity, the outcomes of this represent an arms race, a positive feedback loop that is already exploding.

But I think that Condi Rice, like so many of the appointees in the White House, have a particular Self System composed of the attributes of Right-Wing Authoritarian (both leaders and followers), and with those principles/attributes, they seemingly cannot act any other way. I would call that being deluded.

I heartily recommend:
Ricks, Thomas (2006). Fiasco. (He asked the military for truth, and they as much told him)
Dean, John W. (2006). Conservatives without Conscience. (Right Wing Authoritarians...)
Clarke, Richard (2003?). Against All Enemies. (He left the White House, remember)

For three years, well-intentioned, well-connected, and well-informed truth-tellers still can't get past the American mindset: The Self as a Control System with Right-Wing Authoritarian characteristics. Read the Dean book with PCT in mind. Of course, Dean does not use the paradigm, but it is easy to set up an explanation that self-image is driving perceptions of principles which drives programs and so on.

If a person believes that honoring their leaders fulfills their own sense of worth, then any amount of truth-telling by Ricks, Dean, Clarke, etc. will not cause the reorganization we would think necessary for that person to admit that we are in a heckofa Fiasco.

--Bry

Rick Marken wrote:
> [From Rick Marken (2006.08.04.1100)]
>
> Here is a recent statement made by Condoleza Rice, who, believe it or not, is the US Secretary of State.
>
> "I'll stack up [my] policy in the Middle East against any," she said. "I think we have made more progress under this president toward a Middle East that will be different and better than at any other time in recent memory."
>
> But it looks to me like the Middle East is in far worse shape than it has been in years. I'm wondering whether the difference between Condi's evaluation of the Middle East situation and my own is a difference between us in terms of perceptions or references.
>
> I don't think Condi and I actually perceive things differently; I think we both are capable of seeing the death of innocents and destruction of infrastructure in the same way. So perhaps we are looking at different dimensions of our perceptions. For example, she may be basing her conclusion on the perception of Saddam having been overthrown while ignoring other perceptions, like the anti-US insurgency, sectarian violence, Hamas victory in Palestine, war with Hezbolla, destruction of Lebanon, etc. So the difference between Condi and me may be in the _dimensions_ of perception that we use to evaluate how things are going in the Middle East (the evaluation being done relative to references that are similar in both of us). She looks at and evaluates only one dimension (the Saddam deposed dimension) and I look at and evaluate more than one (which includes the death and destruction dimensions).
>
> But the difference between us could be based on our having different references for the same perceptions. It may be that we are both perceiving the same things, including the killing of innocents and the destruction of Lebanon, but that these perceptions match her references for what constitutes things getting better in the Middle East while they don't match mine.
>
> A third possibility is that Condi is hallucinating; using her imagination to "perceive" what no one else can perceive: a Middle East on the brink of peace and cooperation.
>
> Of course, a fourth possibility is that she is lying through her teeth: that she, like me, sees that things aren't getting anything like better in the Middle East but won't say so. But this couldn't be right because Republicans don't lie. Only Democrats lie -- and about really terrible things like whether or not they got blow jobs from someone other than their wife. Thank goodness that we have an honest, moral administration in office during this time of crisis;-)

···

> Best
>
> Rick

3

From [Marc Abrams (2006.08.04.1424)]

[From Rick Marken (2006.08.04.1100)]

Here is a recent statement made by Condoleza Rice, who, believe it or not, is the US Secretary of State.

I’m not sure what your point is here? Are you talking about the construction of our “perceptions” or the “value judgments” we give those perceptions?

Frankly it sounds like neither. It sounds like a political rant. Was that your intention?

Regards,

Marc

···

Check out AOL.com today. Breaking news, video search, pictures, email and IM. All on demand. Always Free.

4

[From Rick Marken (2006.08.04.1220)]

Marc Abrams (2006.08.04.1424)

I'm not sure what your point is here? Are you talking about the construction of our "perceptions" or the "value judgments" we give those perceptions?

I was talking about both. I found Rice's statement rather startling and I though it might be interesting to look at it in terms of PCT. Rice said that things are getting better in the Middle East as a result of current policies. It looks to me like thing are getting worse in the Middle East as a result of current policies. I was suggesting some ways that PCT might explain the difference between Rice's and my view. Is it because we perceive things differently or because we want things differently? I really don't know which it is.

I guess my bias is to think that people _can_ perceive things the same way. If this were not true then I think science would be impossible. So I'm inclined to think that Rice and I just want our perceptions to be in different states.

I think Rice and I perceive the same things happening in the Middle East. We differ, I believe, in that Rice seems to want these perceptions and I don't. This is actually a rather optimistic way of conceiving of our difference because I think it's easier to change what we want than to change the way we perceive.

Changing what you want was basically Kubrick's solution to cold war worries about nuclear holocaust as described in the subtitle to Dr. Strangelove -- How to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb. All you have to do is change your wants: from wanting to avoid the end of the world to wanting to have the world end (like the evangelicals who are apparently happy to see what's happening in the Middle East as the beginning of Armageddon; hallelujah;-))

Richard S. Marken Consulting
marken@mindreadings.com
Home 310 474-0313
Cell 310 729-1400

5

[From Bill Powers (2006.08.04.1550 MDT)]

Marc Abrams (2006.08.04.1424) –

[From Rick Marken
(2006.08.04.1100)]

Here is a recent statement made by Condoleza Rice, who, believe it or
not, is the US Secretary of State.

I’m not sure what your point is here? Are you
talking about the construction of our “perceptions” or the
“value judgments” we give those perceptions?

Frankly it sounds like neither. It sounds like a political rant. Was that
your intention?

Aside from the politics, which is still tiresome and self-indulgent on
CSGnet, the issue seems to be whether all people perceive at all levels
the same way Rick Marken perceives. If they do, then the only differences
possible are in the states of the perceptions that are chosen as
reference levels. But it is also possible that not all people have the
same perceptions as Rick, particularly at the event level and up but even
at lower levels.
An example at the relationship level comes to mind. If you drop a bomb on
my village, do you perceive this as an unwarranted act of
aggression, or as a justified retaliation for some previous action of
mine which you see as an unwarranted act of aggression (like dropping a
bomb on your village)? Simply by the way you group configurations and
transitions into events, you can perceive the relationship either way,
and categorize it either way. This is a genuine difference in perception,
I think, Does a wind-up clock say tick-tock, or does it say tock-tick? We
may agree the we heard a tick or a tock, but we can disagree completely
on our perception of the clock’s unit of behavior.
There is another way to perceive the bombing, which is as two parties
locked into a positive feedback loop with no beginning and no end. It
will remain until at least one of the parties to the conflict is dead, or
until someone breaks the cycle. But this seems to be a case where the
real cause of the difficulty is the fact that both parties percieve in
the same way, though they disagree on when the cycle starts, and the
solution seems to depend on one or both parties reorganizing to perceive
what is happening in a different way, which I think I have just
demonstrated is possible.
If we recognize that people can look at the same lower-order experiences
and derive different higher-order perceptions from them, we can redefine
the problem of getting along with others by moving the discussion to
still a higher level. But the recognition that people can have very
different perceptions of the same “objective” reality must come
first. Without that recognition, we would have to conclude that the other
person is not sincere, or not logical, or not sane. Only an idiot or an
evil person could claim that a clock goes tock-tick, tock tick, when it
is so obvious that it goes tick-tock, tick-tock. Jonathan Swift showed us
something similar, in the argument between the Big-Endians and the
Little-Endians, which revolved around the fact that only a stupid or
perverse person would crack an egg open at the Big End (or the Little
End).
I think that Rick’s proposal is an impediment to human understanding. At
least that’s how I perceive it.
All that aside, I wonder how Rick would propose to establish as a fact
the idea that two people have the same perception of –
anything.

Best,

Bill P.

6

[From Rick Marken (2006.08.04.1730)]

Bill Powers (2006.08.04.1550 MDT)--

Aside from the politics, which is still tiresome and self-indulgent on CSGnet,

That's your perception;-) But I can perceive it that way, too.

the issue seems to be whether all people perceive at all levels the same way Rick Marken perceives.

I think it would be more correct to say that the issue is whether all people are _capable_ of perceiving at all levels in the same way I do. I think they are capable of doing that, otherwise, it seems to me, discussions like these (to say nothing of science itself) would be impossible.

If they do, then the only differences possible are in the states of the perceptions that are chosen as reference levels. But it is also possible that not all people have the same perceptions as Rick, particularly at the event level and up but even at lower levels.

I know that people perceive things that I don't always perceive and that I perceive things that other people don't always perceive. But I think I am _capable_ of perceiving (or learning to perceive) what others perceive and that others are capable of perceiving what I perceive.

An example at the relationship level comes to mind. If you drop a bomb on my village, do you perceive this as an unwarranted act of aggression, or as a justified retaliation for some previous action of mine which you see as an unwarranted act of aggression (like dropping a bomb on your village)? Simply by the way you group configurations and transitions into events, you can perceive the relationship either way, and categorize it either way. This is a genuine difference in perception, I think,

Sure. It's like seeing the same ambiguous figure (like the wife/mother-in-law) in two ways. On first seeing it one might see only the wife. I believe, however, that most people are capable of seeing it both ways, eventually.

Does a wind-up clock say tick-tock, or does it say tock-tick? We may agree the we heard a tick or a tock, but we can disagree completely on our perception of the clock's unit of behavior.

Same thing. I believe most people are capable of perceiving it both ways, even if they perceive it one way rather than another at first.

If we recognize that people can look at the same lower-order experiences and derive different higher-order perceptions from them, we can redefine the problem of getting along with others by moving the discussion to still a higher level.

Could you give me an example of how this works? Would the Israelis be able to get along with the Arabs better if they could move the discussion to a higher level? If people don't get along because they perceive things differently then how would it help to move the discussion to a higher level?

But the recognition that people can have very different perceptions of the same "objective" reality must come first.

I think the idea that people often perceive the same situation differently is part of common knowledge. Plays like Rashomon or the wonderful comedies of Sheridan and Moliere turn on this knowledge. I don't think PCT's claim to fame is pointing out that people perceive the same objective reality differently. I think PCT's claim to fame should be pointing out that perceiving things differently is _not_ the basis of human conflict. The basis of human conflict is that people often do perceive objective reality in the same way but want that perceived reality in different states. Now that's news!

The fact that people perceive things differently is certainly the basis of many verbal disagreements. But I think real conflict between people results only when people are perceiving the same reality in approximately the same way.

My point is not that people don't often perceive things differently from one another. My point is only that each person (I think) is capable of perceiving the same "objective" reality in the same ways as every other person, because they are capable of constructing these perceptions with the same kinds of perceptual functions.

Without that recognition, we would have to conclude that the other person is not sincere, or not logical, or not sane.

I recognize that people can have very different perceptions of the same objective reality. There are several ways this can be true. One I mentioned in my earlier post: it may be that the parties are not attending to the same dimensions of their perceptions. They also may be attending to different levels of their perceptual experience. As I said in an earlier post, I think it's very possible that Rice is basing her judgment of the success of her Mideast policies on a different aspect of her perception of the Mideast situation than I am when I judge it a failure.

I think that Rick's proposal is an impediment to human understanding. At least that's how I perceive it.

That may be. But I'm not sure you know what my proposal is. You seem to think I am saying that everyone perceives things in the same way. But that is not my proposal. My proposal is that all people are _capable_ of perceiving in the same way, in the sense that all people perceive in terms of a hierarchy of the _same kinds_ of perceptions. People are capable, I believe, of perceiving the world in the same way -- though not necessarily at the same time. For example, I can't see the palm of your hand while you are looking at it (a fact which you demonstrated to me at the conference;-) So while you are looking at your palm, I am looking at the back of your hand and we are perceiving the same reality (your hand) differently. My proposal does not deny that fact. My proposal is only that when you turn the palm towards me I am _capable_ of perceiving what you were just perceiving -- the palm configuration.

All that aside, I wonder how Rick would propose to establish as a fact the idea that two people have the same perception of -- anything.

I would say that we can establish that two people have the same perception of something if they can both control it. So I think your and my perception of cursor position in a tracking task, for example, is demonstrably the same.

However, if what you may mean by "perception" here is "subjective experience" then I think there is no way to show that people have the same perception of anything. For all I know, what you experience as cursor position may be what I experience as different shades of blue.

I think the fact that people can communicate rather well, that they can do science and that they get into conflicts suggests that, by and large, they are _able to_ (and often do) perceive the world in the same way; they are capable of perceiving the world in terms of the same perceptual variables.

Best

Rick

···

---
Richard S. Marken Consulting
marken@mindreadings.com
Home 310 474-0313
Cell 310 729-1400

7

[From Bill Powers (2006.08.04.1905 MDT)]

Rick Marken (2006.08.04.1730)–

I think it would be more correct
to say that the issue is whether all people are capable of perceiving
at all levels in the same way I do.

In the sense that we all (possibly) perceive the same kinds of variables
at the various levels, I agree. But as to whether a given person can,
having become organized, reorganize in all of the possible ways, I have
my doubts. The structure of perceptions is interdependent; the specific
examples we acquire at each level become the raw material for perceptions
at the next level, and the next level can produce only functions of the
perceptions that exist at the lower levels. I don’t think that Baptists
become Buddhists ( I hope I put that h in the right place). At the
highest levels you’d have to reorganize a lot of things at lower levels.
Not impossible, but not common.

I think they are capable
of doing that, otherwise, it seems to me, discussions like these (to say
nothing of science itself) would be impossible.

Even in discussions like these there are difficulties and ambiguities.
The discussions are not made impossible by that, but reaching real
agreement is very difficult. How did you perceive what I wrote? How else
might I have perceived what you wrote? When you agree with me, with what,
exactly, are you agreeing? Just indicating agreement (or disagreement)
tells me next to nothing.

I know that people perceive
things that I don’t always perceive and that I perceive things that other
people don’t always perceive. But I think I am capable of perceiving
(or learning to perceive) what others perceive and that others are
capable of perceiving what I perceive.

So it seems, up to a point. But do you actually determine that in fact
the perceptions are the same, or only that it doesn’t seem worth the
trouble to check any further? I still don’t see how you can show that my
perceptions at any level are the same as yours. This is partly
because no matter what you say about your perceptions, I know only what
your words mean to me, in terms of my own experiences. If I interpret
what you say, or what I think you’re pointing to, in terms of selected
perceptions of my own , which is inevitable, I can find agreement in your
words. But if I selecdt other perceptions with which to interpret them, I
can find disagreement, too. So when you think you can learn to perceive
what I perceive, how do you check to see if that has really happened? I
don’t think you can. I think we quit trying to cross-check when we find a
way to rationalize that makes agreement seem to exist.

If we recognize that people can
look at the same lower-order experiences and derive different
higher-order perceptions from them, we can redefine the problem of
getting along with others by moving the discussion to still a
higher level.

Could you give me an example of how this works? Would the Israelis
be able to get along with the Arabs better if they could move the
discussion to a higher level? If people don’t get along because they
perceive things differently then how would it help to move the discussion
to a higher level?

One way to do this would be to say, “We have been at this for 30
(50, whatever) years. Maybe we’ve better examine our theories of human
nature. For example, when my side retaliates against something your side
did, the people on my side say that this will teach your side a lesson
and make them see that the cost of another attack would be greater than
they’re willing to accept. What do the people on your side say about
that?”

You can guess the answer.

By examining the theories and other perceptions that are the basis for
what both sides do (as each side sees it) the parties would be forced to
be aware from a higher level of organization. A corrolary of the idea
that you can’t tell what a person is doing by looking at what the person
is doing is “You can’t see what you are doing while you’re doing
it.” Of course the trick is the same: you can’t see what you’re
doing at a higher level while your attention is on the mechanics of doing
it at a lower level.

The fact that people perceive
things differently is certainly the basis of many verbal disagreements.
But I think real conflict between people results only when people are
perceiving the same reality in approximately the same
way.

I don’t think it’s necessary that the people actually be perceiving the
same reality in the same way before conflict can happen. All that is
necessary that my controlling my perceptual variable makes it
impossible for you to control yours. We don’t even have to know what the
other person is controlling, or why it is that this linkage
exists.

My point is not that people
don’t often perceive things differently from one another. My point is
only that each person (I think) is capable of perceiving the same
“objective” reality in the same ways as every other person,
because they are capable of constructing these perceptions with the same
kinds of perceptual functions.

This may be the source of our problem. Yes, I would agree that we have
similar or even the same levels of perception. But to me, that means only
that we have certain kinds of neural material that is predisposed to the
creation of perceptual functions of certain types – not that any two of
us necessarily create identical perceptual functions at any level, or
even need to.

Think of the ThreeSystems demonstration I showed in China. Here we have
three control systems (assumed to be in one organism) that reorganize so
they keep their own perceptual signals matching a set of three reference
signals – but the pattern of objective environmental variables is not
the same as the pattern of perceptual signals. If we consider two trials
of this demonstration as representing two different people, we would find
that each person can control three perceptions in the same way, but that
the behavior of the environment would not be the same for both of them.

Maybe this points to an answer. If both people try to control the same
environment, the differences in their perceptual and output functions
will show up as conflict, because the same environmental variables are
then required to behave in two different ways at the same time. This
conflict would be puzzling to them because each seems to be in full
control of the three perceptions. Yet what one person does to control
them results in disturbing what the other person is doing to control
them, even if somehow they manage to agree that they are controlling the
same variables. And even if their perceptual signals are actually
behaving the same way!

Richard Kennaway, is this a solution to the epistemological problem? I’ve
been looking (for years!) for ways in which we could tell that two people
are not seeing the environment in the same way – and do it without
giving either of them a way of knowing what is actually happening outside
them. The existence of a conflict may be the evidence of non-congruity.
And that might be the basis for reorganizing to make the two control
systems more nearly alike, even without ever knowing how the environment
is really organized.

Which leads to the thought that the larger the group of people
reorganizing to eliminate conflict in a shared environment, the more
nearly the final result would approach “natural kinds”, the
planes of cleavage of reality itself. Or is that just wishful
thinking?

Best,

Bill P.

···

Without that recognition, we
would have to conclude that the other person is not sincere, or not
logical, or not sane.

I recognize that people can have very different perceptions of the same
objective reality. There are several ways this can be true. One I
mentioned in my earlier post: it may be that the parties are not
attending to the same dimensions of their perceptions. They also may be
attending to different levels of their perceptual experience. As I
said in an earlier post, I think it’s very possible that Rice is basing
her judgment of the success of her Mideast policies on a different aspect
of her perception of the Mideast situation than I am when I judge it a
failure.

I think that Rick’s proposal is
an impediment to human understanding. At least that’s how I perceive it.

That may be. But I’m not sure you know what my proposal is. You seem to
think I am saying that everyone perceives things in the same way. But
that is not my proposal. My proposal is that all people are capable of
perceiving in the same way, in the sense that all people perceive in
terms of a hierarchy of the same kinds of perceptions. People are
capable, I believe, of perceiving the world in the same way –
though not necessarily at the same time. For example, I can’t see the
palm of your hand while you are looking at it (a fact which you
demonstrated to me at the conference;-) So while you are looking at your
palm, I am looking at the back of your hand and we are perceiving the
same reality (your hand) differently. My proposal does not deny that
fact. My proposal is only that when you turn the palm towards me I am
capable of perceiving what you were just perceiving – the palm
configuration.

All that aside, I wonder how
Rick would propose to establish as a fact the idea that two people have
the same perception of – anything.

I would say that we can establish that two people have the same
perception of something if they can both control it. So I think
your and my perception of cursor position in a tracking task, for
example, is demonstrably the same.

However, if what you may mean by “perception” here is
“subjective experience” then I think there is no way to show
that people have the same perception of anything. For all I know, what
you experience as cursor position may be what I experience as different
shades of blue.

I think the fact that people can communicate rather well, that they can
do science and that they get into conflicts suggests that, by and large,
they are able to (and often do) perceive the world in the same
way; they are capable of perceiving the world in terms of the same
perceptual variables.

Best

Rick

Richard S. Marken Consulting

marken@mindreadings.com

Home 310 474-0313

Cell 310 729-1400


No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.394 / Virus Database: 268.10.7/409 - Release Date: 8/4/2006
8

[From Fred Nickols (2006.08.05.0704)] --
      

From Rick Marken (2006.08.04.1730)]

I think the idea that people often perceive the same situation
differently is part of common knowledge. Plays like Rashomon or the
wonderful comedies of Sheridan and Moliere turn on this knowledge. I
don't think PCT's claim to fame is pointing out that people perceive
the same objective reality differently. I think PCT's claim to fame
should be pointing out that perceiving things differently is _not_ the
basis of human conflict. The basis of human conflict is that people
often do perceive objective reality in the same way but want that
perceived reality in different states. Now that's news!

Hmm. That's not news to me and it wasn't long before I encountered PCT. Case in point: It seems pretty clear that right-wing conservatives and left-wing liberals have two very different goal states for that country called America. What's "news" to me about PCT is the view of people as closed-loop, feedback-governed, goal-seeking entities - coupled with some pretty good illustrative examples and ways of testing it.

···

--
Regards,

Fred Nickols
Senior Consultant
Distance Consulting
nickols@att.net
www.nickols.us

"Assistance at A Distance"

From: Rick Marken <marken@MINDREADINGS.COM>
To: CSGNET@LISTSERV.UIUC.EDU
Subject: Re: Perception or Reference
Date: Sat, 5 Aug 2006 00:33:26 +0000
Content-Type: Multipart/alternative;
boundary="NextPart_Webmail_9m3u9jl4l_22735_1154776362_1"

9

[From Rick Marken (2006.08.05.1115)]

Bill Powers (2006.08.04.1905 MDT)--

Rick Marken (2006.08.04.1730)--

I think they are capable of doing that, otherwise, it seems to me, discussions like these (to say nothing of science itself) would be impossible.

Even in discussions like these there are difficulties and ambiguities.

Sure. But in everyday life I think we communicate extremely well because we perceive the world in basically the same way. I was able to arrange a trip to China and Japan and have everything work out pretty much exactly as I planned because I was able to communicate the perceptions I wanted to other people and they were able to communicate the perceptions they could provide to me. Sure there are disagreements about what people are perceiving. But I think the agreements, which show up continuously throughout the day as we interact with others, are far more common.

I still don't see how you can show that my perceptions at any level are the same as yours.

So you weren't convinced by the control test? I think the fact that we can both control the position of a cursor (and other variables) shows that we are perceiving the same (or, at least. functionally equivalent) variables -- at least the same enough so that whatever difference exists makes no practical difference, for me,anyway.

I don't think it's necessary that the people actually be perceiving the same reality in the same way before conflict can happen. All that is necessary that my controlling my perceptual variable makes it impossible for you to control yours. We don't even have to know what the other person is controlling, or why it is that this linkage exists.

Yes. It's our goals (and those environmental linkages) that create the problem, not the way we perceive the situation.

My point is not that people don't often perceive things differently from one another. My point is only that each person (I think) is capable of perceiving the same "objective" reality in the same ways as every other person, because they are capable of constructing these perceptions with the same kinds of perceptual functions.

This may be the source of our problem. Yes, I would agree that we have similar or even the same levels of perception. But to me, that means only that we have certain kinds of neural material that is predisposed to the creation of perceptual functions of certain types -- not that any two of us necessarily create identical perceptual functions at any level, or even need to.

Think of the ThreeSystems demonstration I showed in China.

Is that the one that is like my "Control of Perception" demo at

http://www.mindreadings.com/ControlDemo/ControlP.html

If so, it seems to me like a demonstration of the fact that different people can perceive and control the same perceptual variables (in my case shape, width of angle of a line though the planar figure; in your case the position, orientation or shape of the solid figure).

Maybe this points to an answer. If both people try to control the same environment, the differences in their perceptual and output functions will show up as conflict, because the same environmental variables are then required to behave in two different ways at the same time.

I don't understand this. If two people try to control the same environment (say the environment is just two variables, x1 and x2) then there will only be conflict if they are controlling perceptions of x1, x2 that are the same (or similar). If the perceptions are different -- say person 1 controls p1 = ax1+bx2 and person 2 control p2 = ax1-bx2) then there is no conflict.

This conflict would be puzzling to them because each seems to be in full control of the three perceptions. Yet what one person does to control them results in disturbing what the other person is doing to control them, even if somehow they manage to agree that they are controlling the same variables. And even if their perceptual signals are actually behaving the same way!

You'll have to run this by me again. It seems to me that there will only be conflict if the two people are controlling functionally equivalent perceptions of the same environmental variables. I don't understand what you're proposing here.

Best

Rick

···

---
Richard S. Marken Consulting
marken@mindreadings.com
Home 310 474-0313
Cell 310 729-1400

10

[From Bill Powers (2006.08.04.1305 MDT)]

Rick Marken (2006.08.05.1115) –

I still don’t see how you can
show that my perceptions at any level are the same as yours.

So you weren’t convinced by the control test? I think the fact that we
can both control the position of a cursor (and other variables) shows
that we are perceiving the same (or, at least. functionally equivalent)
variables – at least the same enough so that whatever difference exists
makes no practical difference, for me,anyway.

But that’s my point. We stop trying to verify when we think any remaining
differences make no practical difference. However, I still don’t know
what you experience behind the words “target” and
“cursor” and “control” and “error” – the
whole schmear. I know only what I experience. If I asked you to prove
that what you mean by the word “tracking” is the same as what I
mean, you couldn’t do it. Go ahead, try. You’ll find that you use other
words which you also can’t prove to have the same meanings for me as for
you. I literally can’t see any way around that.

The idea that our disparities of perception might lead to conflict is one
way out of this problem, though it still doesn’t tell us what the reality
behind our perceptions really is. If we can reorganize to eliminate the
conflict, then at least in that one situation the differences between our
perceptions and the reality are the same for both of us even if we don’t
know what the differences are. Think of that ThreeSystems demo. We could
reorganize so that when your perception of the trajectory of the
controlled variable is the same as mine, we will each control in such a
way that the other experiences no error, no disturbance Yet the actual
trajectory in objective space can still be different in both of us from
the perceptual variable’s trajectory.

I don’t think it’s necessary
that the people actually be perceiving the same reality in the same way
before conflict can happen. All that is necessary that my
controlling my perceptual variable makes it impossible for you to control
yours. We don’t even have to know what the other person is controlling,
or why it is that this linkage exists.

Yes. It’s our goals (and those environmental linkages) that create the
problem, not the way we perceive the situation.

The parenthesis should read “or those environmental
linkages”. We can have very different perceptions and goals for
them, yet the linkages in the environment can make them conflict. It’s
not necessary that we be perceiving the same variables for conflict to
develop. You can like fast cars and I can like gourmet dining, but if we
share a common income it may turn out that we can’t both correct our
errors at the same time. The environmental linkage connects variables
that have no other connection.

Think of the ThreeSystems
demonstration I showed in China.

Is that the one that is like my “Control of Perception” demo at


http://www.mindreadings.com/ControlDemo/ControlP.html

If so, it seems to me like a demonstration of the fact that different
people can perceive and control the same perceptual variables (in my case
shape, width of angle of a line though the planar figure; in your case
the position, orientation or shape of the solid
figure).

Yes, or like Demo 1, in which the mouse affects three cursors with
different disturbances of each – though yours is by far the more
elegant. But how do you know I’m controlling the same variable you are
controlling? You’re seeing what is happening through your own perceptual
functions whether you are doing the controlling or someone else is. It’s
not that I can prove we ARE NOT controlling the same variable in
objective space. It’s only that I can’t prove that we ARE.

Maybe this points to an answer.
If both people try to control the same environment, the differences in
their perceptual and output functions will show up as conflict, because
the same environmental variables are then required to behave in two
different ways at the same time.

I don’t understand this. If two people try to control the same
environment (say the environment is just two variables, x1 and x2) then
there will only be conflict if they are controlling perceptions of x1, x2
that are the same (or similar). If the perceptions are different – say
person 1 controls p1 = ax1+bx2 and person 2 control p2 = ax1-bx2) then
there is no conflict.

No. Look at ThreeSystemsC. People do not control environmental variables:
they control perceptions derived from environmental variables. What they
are actually controlling in the environment depends on all the perceptual
input functions that lie between the perceptual signal and the external
variables. In threesystems, what lies between the perceptual signals and
the three environmental variables is a matrix of weights that in general
does not preserve either angles or distances. So when the perceptual
signals form a nice compact 3-D lissajous pattern, matching the
variations in the reference signals, the actual environmental variables
are describing a pattern that does not have the same symmetry, is not of
the same size, and is not rotated to the same angle.
In another system that controls relative to the same pattern of reference
signals but has a different randomly selected set of input weights,
control is still achievable after reorganization. However, because the
input matrix is different, it takes a different pattern of environmental
changes to make the perceptual signals follow the same changes in
the reference signals. If you could move inside each system, you would
experience the same pattern of perceptual signal changes – yet each
system would be doing something very different to its environment, and
the environmental variables would be tracing out a different pattern.
That is why there would be conflict.

This conflict would be puzzling
to them because each seems to be in full control of the three
perceptions. Yet what one person does to control them results in
disturbing what the other person is doing to control them, even if
somehow they manage to agree that they are controlling the same
variables. And even if their perceptual signals are actually behaving the
same way!

You’ll have to run this by me again. It seems to me that there will only
be conflict if the two people are controlling functionally equivalent
perceptions of the same environmental variables. I don’t understand what
you’re proposing here.

It’s not easy to make it clear. Maybe what I wrote above helps. Studying
the demo ThreeSystemsC should help, once you are clear about what you’re
looking at. Assume that you’re observing from a higher-order system that
sees the Lissajous pattern in the behavior of the three perceptual
signals (which in fact is what you’re doing). That pattern is all you can
know about the environment if you’re inside the control systems.

What the demo does is show you what the control systems cannot see – the
objective reality behind the perceptions. We see that the environmental
variables do NOT follow the same pattern that exists in the three
perceptual signals. As I said, the objective pattern is of a different
size with less symmetry, and is rotated to a different angle. The control
systems reorganize to achieve independent control in all three systems,
by producing output functions with weights that exactly compensate for
the distortions put in by the input functions. So the control
systems know nothing about the distortions: they see three perceptual
signals following the specified variations in the three reference signals
to produce the desired patterns.

And this is true for all random choices of the input weighting matrix.
That means that two different “organisms” with different
randomly chosen input matrixes would experience control of the same
perceptual pattern, yet if they both tried to control that pattern at the
same time, there would be immediate conflict because the variations in
the environmental variables needed to achieve control are different for
the two “organisms.”

I suppose I’m going to have to go ahead and program two systems so they
both try to control at the same time, and let the error signals drive the
reorganization of their input functions. The two input matrices ought to
come to resemble each other, but I predict that while the two sets of
perceptions will match each other, neither will resemble the actual
behavior of the environmental variables. I don’t quite see what criterion
to use for reorganizing the input functions – maybe someone will have a
suggestion. Or maybe someone else will do the whole damned thing. I have
to get packed to move, in slightly more than three weeks, and panic is
gradually setting in. I shouldn’t even be writing this, but working on
the garage. This is a lot more fun.

Best,

Bill P.

11

[From Rick Marken (2006.08.05.1450)]

Fred Nickols (2006.08.05.0704) --
      
From Rick Marken (2006.08.04.1730)

The basis of human conflict is that people
often do perceive objective reality in the same way but want that
perceived reality in different states. Now that's news!

Hmm. That's not news to me and it wasn't long before I encountered PCT. Case in point: It seems pretty clear that right-wing conservatives and left-wing liberals have two very different goal states for that country called America. What's "news" to me about PCT is the view of people as closed-loop, feedback-governed, goal-seeking entities - coupled with some pretty good illustrative examples and ways of testing it.

I think even more newsworthy is the view that people are feedback _governing_ rather than feedback-governed, if what you mean by "feedback" is the perceived consequences of action.

Best

Rick

···

---
Richard S. Marken Consulting
marken@mindreadings.com
Home 310 474-0313
Cell 310 729-1400

12

[From Fred Nickols (2006.08.05.1810)] --

[From Rick Marken (2006.08.05.1450)]

I think even more newsworthy is the view that people are feedback
_governing_ rather than feedback-governed, if what you mean by
"feedback" is the perceived consequences of action.

How about "feedback" as the perceived consequences of action in relation to the intended consequences?

···

--
Regards,

Fred Nickols
Senior Consultant
Distance Consulting
nickols@att.net
www.nickols.us

"Assistance at A Distance"

13

[From Rick Marken (2006.08.05.1530)]

Bill Powers (2006.08.04.1305 MDT)--

Rick Marken (2006.08.05.1115) --

So you weren't convinced by the control test? I think the fact that we can both control the position of a cursor (and other variables) shows that we are perceiving the same (or, at least. functionally equivalent) variables -- at least the same enough so that whatever difference exists makes no practical difference, for me,anyway.

But that's my point. We stop trying to verify when we think any remaining differences make no practical difference. However, I still don't know what you experience behind the words "target" and "cursor" and "control" and "error" -- the whole schmear.

Now you're talking about perception as experience. I already agreed that there is no way for us to know whether we experience the same thing. All I can know is that we are controlling what is functionally the same (or nearly the same) variable.

Yes. It's our goals (and those environmental linkages) that create the problem, not the way we perceive the situation.

The parenthesis should read "or those environmental linkages". We can have very different perceptions and goals for them, yet the linkages in the environment can make them conflict.

Yes. In fact, my demonstration of conflict (http://www.mindreadings.com/ControlDemo/Conflict.html) shows that. Because of the linkages in the environment, when you control two completely different perceptions of the same situation (vertical and horizontal position of a cursor) there is conflict. But the conflict is not a result of controlling different perceptions; it results in spite of the fact that you are controlling different perception. In this case it's the environmental linkages that create the conflict.

It's not necessary that we be perceiving the same variables for conflict to develop.

That's right!

I don't understand this. If two people try to control the same environment (say the environment is just two variables, x1 and x2) then there will only be conflict if they are controlling perceptions of x1, x2 that are the same (or similar). If the perceptions are different -- say person 1 controls p1 = ax1+bx2 and person 2 control p2 = ax1-bx2) then there is no conflict.

No.

OK, I agree. Even if people are controlling completely different perceptions of the same environment there can still be conflict if there are environmental linkages between the two perceptions, as there are in my Cost of Conflict demo. But, again, this kind of conflict occurs _despite_ the fact that the systems are controlling two different perceptions, not _because_ they are controlling two different perceptions. On the other hand, I think conflict will always occur when two systems are controlling the same perception.

I still believe (though I am always open to being convinced otherwise) that it is incorrect to say that conflict results from people perceiving the same situation in two different ways. Conflict _can_ occur when people see the same situation differently -- when there is an environmental linkage that makes the actions that control each perception a disturbance to the other perception. But in that case the conflict is not a result of perceiving the same situation differently. But conflict will always occur when people are trying to control the same perception of the same situation relative to even slightly different references.

If what I said in the above paragraph is not basically correct, then I guess I have to go back to square 1 in my study of control theory.

Best

Rick

···

---
Richard S. Marken Consulting
marken@mindreadings.com
Home 310 474-0313
Cell 310 729-1400

14

[From Rick Marken (2006.08.05.1600)]

Kenny Kitzke (2006.08.05.1700EDT)

Rick Marken (2006.08.04.1100)>

So the difference between Condi
and me may be in the _dimensions_ of perception that we use to evaluate
how things are going in the Middle East (the evaluation being done
relative to references that are similar in both of us). She looks at
and evaluates only one dimension (the Saddam deposed dimension) and I
look at and evaluate more than one (which includes the death and
destruction dimensions).

As a PCT practitioner, isn't it obvious Rick that you cannot know what or which dimensions another person is looking at for evaluation by statements they make? Your statement is demeaning (and I suspect that you intend it to be) about our Secretary of State. And, it is self aggrandizing.

And tiresome and self-indulgent, too, I guess. Sorry. Things are just getting so horrible over in that region (from my perspective) that when I read Rice's statement (saying that things were really getting better) it just sent me flying (big disturbance). I really was interested in why she might have said such a thing; was it different perceptions or different references (or something else). Actually, the only people who said that they didn't like my post were Marc, Bill and you. I knew you and Marc wouldn't like it. I suspect that Bill didn't like it because -- well, probably because he thought it was stupid. I think Bill just likes to beat up on me occasionally; we have a moderately dysfunctional relationship but I love him anyway;-)

I am at a loss to comprehend why you continue to insist on using such personalized political examples to make legitimate queries in how PCT/HPCT applies to events in our lives. This is not a political forum. Your PCT knowledge is welcome, respected and appropriate here. Your political views are not welcome, respected or appropriate here, speaking for myself.

What's happening in the Middle East is the purposeful activity of humans. The policies being developed to deal with it are being developed to achieve human purposes. The issues that are creating the problems in the Middle East are in the minds of purposeful humans. PCT is a theory of purposeful human behavior. I think we should be able to discuss the relationship between PCT and some of the most important human behavior that is currently happening on this planet. That includes religious behavior, political behavior, criminal behavior, economic behavior, creative behavior, and so on. If people (or other living systems) do it, then I think we should be able to talk about it in terms of PCT.

Best

Rick

···

---
Richard S. Marken Consulting
marken@mindreadings.com
Home 310 474-0313
Cell 310 729-1400

15

[From Rick Marken (2006.08.05.1635)]

Kenny Kitzke (2006.08.05.1900/EDT)--

So, are you really sorry enough to try a different approach?

Sure. Any suggestions. A different language, perhaps?

On your last point, sexual perversions are purposful human behavior too and horrible, especially to alter boys, abused children and young Asian girls. Does that need to be brought up here too to understand human behavior?

Sure. If it interests you (or anyone) and it is discussed in the context of PCT. I just don't see the problem with talking about important current events (like the Middle East) in terms of PCT.

Best

Rick

···

---
Richard S. Marken Consulting
marken@mindreadings.com
Home 310 474-0313
Cell 310 729-1400

16

[From Rick Marken (2006.08.05.1640)]

Fred Nickols (2006.08.05.1810)] --

Rick Marken (2006.08.05.1450)]

I think even more newsworthy is the view that people are feedback
_governing_ rather than feedback-governed, if what you mean by
"feedback" is the perceived consequences of action.

How about "feedback" as the perceived consequences of action in relation to the intended consequences?

That sounds like error, which does "govern" itself, I suppose (increasing error leads to action that decreases error and vice versa). So OK;-)

Best

Rick

···

---
Richard S. Marken Consulting
marken@mindreadings.com
Home 310 474-0313
Cell 310 729-1400

17

[From Bill Powers (2006.08.05.1910 MDT)]

Rick Marken (2006.08.05.1530)--

Now you're talking about perception as experience. I already agreed that there is no way for us to know whether we experience the same thing. All I can know is that we are controlling what is functionally the same (or nearly the same) variable.

But we can't know that (to pursue the conflict idea) unless we find that when we think we are controlling the same thing, a conflict develops. You can't even find out if control is functionally the same if all you rely on are your own perceptions. That's because you have to use your own perceptions to define what either of us is controlling. Does "functionally" mean the way you perceive what is being controlled, or the way I perceive it?

OK, I agree. Even if people are controlling completely different perceptions of the same environment there can still be conflict if there are environmental linkages between the two perceptions, as there are in my Cost of Conflict demo. But, again, this kind of conflict occurs _despite_ the fact that the systems are controlling two different perceptions, not _because_ they are controlling two different perceptions. On the other hand, I think conflict will always occur when two systems are controlling the same perception.

There are degrees of conflict; I think we tacitly reserve the definition for cases in which one or both systems is or are brought to a limit of output so control is lost. When the disparity is mild, there is only a heightened degree of effort without loss of control. With pure integral control systems, of course, the effort will automatically keep escalating as long as there is any error in either system, but real living control systems do not integrate perfectly.

I still believe (though I am always open to being convinced otherwise) that it is incorrect to say that conflict results from people perceiving the same situation in two different ways.

This depends entirely on how the error-correcting actions of each system affect the controlled variable of the other system, doesn't it? It would only be by accident that when I want the glass 1/3 full, you happen to want it 2/3 empty. If we both wanted the maximum amount of our perceptions, we would be trying to make glass both completely full and completely empty.

Conflict _can_ occur when people see the same situation differently -- when there is an environmental linkage that makes the actions that control each perception a disturbance to the other perception. But in that case the conflict is not a result of perceiving the same situation differently. But conflict will always occur when people are trying to control the same perception of the same situation relative to even slightly different references.

If what I said in the above paragraph is not basically correct, then I guess I have to go back to square 1 in my study of control theory.

I don't think it's that bad. You're just oversimplifying a phenomenon that's too complicated to deal with using one simple rule. And I think you're being influenced by modeling, in which we, the modelers, are able to see what is actually going on in the environment, because we created it. In real life, we can know only the perceptual signals inside the sensory boundary. What lies outside that boundary is unknown -- we can only speculate about it. Ernst von Glasersfeld, the radical constructivist, said it this way: "The organism is not a black box. The environment is."

I think we have to ask some searching questions about the way we approach this subject. We all wish that our perceptions were simply accurate, "transparent", representations of reality. But so far I have seen no way to prove that that is the case,and everything I think I know says it is not. I have found ways in which different systems can seem to agree without the agreement implying that EITHER ONE'S perception is a true representation of the world outside. In fact, it's now looking as if only the occurrance of conflict can reveal to us that there is a difference, and in that case we just reorganize until the conflict is resolved -- but we still don't, can't, perceive what the conflict is about. All we know is that as we reorganize, control gets easier.

The ONLY way we perceive a world is in the form of neural perceptual signals in our brains; there is simply no way to compare those perceptions with anything outside the brain. We can propose models that make it seem that there is a correspondence, but with the ThreeSystems demo I have shown that it is not necessary to assume a correspondence. And even if it existed, we would have no way of knowing that it existed.

My view is not a final conclusion. It's simply a statement that I have been unable to find support for any other conclusion. It could be that there is plenty of support for the other conclusion and I simply don't know about it. But until I learn what it is, I have to go with what seems true now.

Best,

Bill P.

18

From [Marc Abrams (2006.08.05.2233)]

[From Rick Marken (2006.08.05.1600)]

And tiresome and self-indulgent, too, I guess. Sorry. Things are just getting so horrible over in that region (from my perspective) >that when I read Rice’s statement (saying that things were really getting better) it just sent me flying (big disturbance). I really was interested in why she might have said such a thing; was it different perceptions or different references (or something else). Actually, >the only people who said that they didn’t like my post were Marc, Bill and you. I knew you and Marc wouldn’t like it. I suspect that >Bill didn’t like it because – well, probably because he thought it was stupid. I think Bill just likes to beat up on me occasionally; we >have a moderately dysfunctional
relationship but I love him anyway;-)

Actually Rick I didn’t understand the purpose of your post. My response had nothing to do with whether I agree or disagree with your politics.

Unlike Kenny, I think any discussion on perceptual control could be important whether it be about politics, sex, drugs or whatever. The problem is trying to stay focused on the perceptual control issues rather than on moralizing over any issue. Its not easy especially when the topics are important and meaningful to us.

Its not so easy getting rid of the emotional component, no matter how “calm” we might try to be. Its our inboard “radar” system against threats.

If we are going to look at control we need to understand how all of the components of our perceptions integrate with each other. That means dealing with heavily loaded and emotional issues. Publicly Ken, not privately.

I am at a loss to comprehend why you continue to insist on using such > personalized political examples to make legitimate queries >in how > PCT/HPCT applies to events in our lives. This is not a political > forum. Your PCT knowledge is welcome, respected and >appropriate here. > Your political views are not welcome, respected or appropriate here, > speaking for myself.

He does it for the same reasons you post and ask him not to do it. Why does it matter to you what he writes? You have a delete key? Use it. Are you willing to talk about yourself and are you willing to publicly test your beliefs? I don’t think so and you might just learn a thing or two if you attempted to understand why Rick controls as he does.

I’m not saying you need or should agree with him or his views but tolerance works both ways.

What’s happening in the Middle East is the purposeful activity of humans. The policies being developed to deal with it are being >developed to achieve human purposes. The issues that are creating the problems in the Middle East are in the minds of purposeful >humans. PCT
is a theory of purposeful human behavior. I think we should be able to discuss the relationship between PCT and some >of the most important human behavior that is currently happening on this planet. That includes religious behavior, political behavior, >criminal behavior, economic behavior, creative behavior, and so on. If people (or other living systems) do it, then I think we should >be able to talk about it in terms of PCT.

I agree. But you are not currently doing that Rick. PCT cannot currently “explain” the purposeful behavior going on because PCT does not address the most important aspect of understanding this mess and that is; how do we construct our perceptions?

If perceptions were strictly the “physics” of the phenomenon than we would have few issues and small problems. But perceptions have a great deal of “baggage” that must be considered and understood along with the “physics”.

As I said before, thinking about a perception as “signal” might be fine for analytical study and theory building but it falls way short in helping us understand exactly what it is we are talking about when we say “perception”. I think we can do a better job without disturbing current PCT thought. After all, a signal is a signal and that is what all cognition ultimately comes down to.

Regards,

Marc

···

Check out AOL.com today. Breaking news, video search, pictures, email and IM. All on demand. Always Free.

19

[From Rick Marken (2006.08.05.2230)]

Bill Powers (2006.08.05.1910 MDT)--

Rick Marken (2006.08.05.1530)--

Now you're talking about perception as experience. I already agreed that there is no way for us to know whether we experience the same thing. All I can know is that we are controlling what is functionally the same (or nearly the same) variable.

But we can't know that (to pursue the conflict idea) unless we find that when we think we are controlling the same thing, a conflict develops.

Yes. I agree. The Test is a way of determining what perception is controlled by seeing if a conflict develops.

You can't even find out if control is functionally the same if all you rely on are your own perceptions. That's because you have to use your own perceptions to define what either of us is controlling. Does "functionally" mean the way you perceive what is being controlled, or the way I perceive it?

The way I (the Tester) perceive it. As you note in B:CP (as I recall) if the tester in the coin game finds that you are controlling for a Z pattern and you say, no, it's an N pattern, then the tester has successfully identified the controlled perception, even though you and he call it different things. The tester knows the controlled perception well enough to go into a mild conflict with you regularly (by disturbing your Z/N pattern).

I still believe (though I am always open to being convinced otherwise) that it is incorrect to say that conflict results from people perceiving the same situation in two different ways.

This depends entirely on how the error-correcting actions of each system affect the controlled variable of the other system, doesn't it? It would only be by accident that when I want the glass 1/3 full, you happen to want it 2/3 empty. If we both wanted the maximum amount of our perceptions, we would be trying to make glass both completely full and completely empty.

I don't understand this. It looks like we're both controlling the same perceptual variable (amount of water in the glass). Are you trying to show me that conflict can result just from controlling different perceptions? It sounds like you're saying that, even though we're controlling different perceptions, conflict can result if the error-correcting actions have appropriate effects on the other system's controlled variable (as they do in my conflict demo). I agree that this is the case but, again, all I'm saying is that the conflict itself does not _result_ from the fact that we are controlling different perceptions.

I think we have to ask some searching questions about the way we approach this subject. We all wish that our perceptions were simply accurate, "transparent", representations of reality.

Not I. I could care less. My comments have nothing to do with the accuracy of perceptions as representations of reality. My only point -- my argument based on my understanding of PCT -- is that controlling different perceptions is not, in itself, a cause of conflict. Conflict can result when we control different perceptions (as in my Cost of Conflict demo and you 3Systems demo) due to environmental linkages between the actions of each system and the perception controlled by the other. But control of different perceptions by different systems -- seeing things differently, in the colloquial -- is never, _in itself_, the basis of conflict between the systems -- when such conflict occurs. Am I wrong about this? Again, if I am, I really will have to return to square one. Which I would do willingly, but dejectedly, if necessary.

Best

Rick

···

---
Richard S. Marken Consulting
marken@mindreadings.com
Home 310 474-0313
Cell 310 729-1400

20

[From Fred Nickols (2006.08.06.0803)] --
      

From Rick Marken (2006.08.05.1640)]

> Fred Nickols (2006.08.05.1810)] --
>
>> Rick Marken (2006.08.05.1450)]
>
>> I think even more newsworthy is the view that people are feedback
>> _governing_ rather than feedback-governed, if what you mean by
>> "feedback" is the perceived consequences of action.
>
> How about "feedback" as the perceived consequences of action in
> relation to the intended consequences?

That sounds like error, which does "govern" itself, I suppose
(increasing error leads to action that decreases error and vice versa).
So OK;-)

Well, I don't want to confuse "feedback" with "error." As I understand it, "error" is the result of comparing an actual (perceived) condition with an intended condition. (I go back to my gunnery days and use the ordered position of a gun mount as the intended position and the measured position of the gun mount as the actual condition. The measured position of the gun mount is just that: its measured position. In isolation, it tells us nothing except the current position of the gun mount. The measured position of the gun mount becomes feedback only when it is viewed in relation to the ordered position. If the ordered position of the gun mount and its measured position vary, then there is an error.

Does that sound reasonable?

···

--
Regards,

Fred Nickols
Senior Consultant
Distance Consulting
nickols@att.net
www.nickols.us

"Assistance at A Distance"