replies

CSGnet Archive CSG1992
1

[From Dag Forssell (920511.22:45)]

Rick Marken (920511 14:30)

What do you mean by "standards"???

In my posts I have tried very hard to make the connection to the
Principle level (as detailed in Powers' and Robertson's book). The word
value is in there too. To Ed, it is at the level of Understanding and
Belief, if I understand him correctly. I think it belongs at the
principle/standards level, if it belongs at all. It signifies a judgement
as to what is important among the things you understand/believe.

Please refer to my original post on standards for a graphic
representation of my interpretation.

I would suggest that religions do try to teach people where to set their
reference for certain perceptions. I think this is not a good way to
help people to function well-- in fact, its just about the worst thing
you can do to many people.

As I have talked to you and read your posts for a long time, I get the
impression that you think that "people will do what they will do"
regardless, and that as a fellow human being you have no business
influencing them. You did admit to me once, that you just might have
influenced your kids along the way. How? Did you per chance teach them
where they might profitably set their reference perceptions, so that they
might function better?

Dr. Spock told a generation of parents to leave their kids alone, and let
them do whatever they pleased. I suppose those kids earn the highest
incomes and have the happiest marriages now. Surely they must function
well, since no-one tried to "control" them when they were little.

I think that just about the only thing that separates humans from animals
is the ability to suggest reference perceptions which the young can adopt
because they choose to.

Greg Williams (920508) recently commented on the tendency of PCT debaters
to bury their heads in the sand, when it comes to "social control."
Influence is a form of social control, for sure. Why be afraid of it?

Influence is for real, and it is important. The world is not populated
only by well behaved, adult PCT academics, who object to being
"controlled" by others. To pretend that positive influence through
teaching "standards" or "principles" is A) impossible or B) bad is a cop
out. Parenting, management, teaching, leadership and counseling are about
that.

When you make an earnest effort to help people manage themselves better,
(because they have hired you for that or because they are your kids), you
are faced with the real question of how to influence them positively and
effectively. You cannot duck and talk theory alone, but it sure helps to
have a good one. You cannot afford the time and confusion of dealing with
everything all at once. You have to figure out a good place to start. I
know of no better application of PCT and set of suggestions on that
subject than Ed's book: Freedom From Stress. Have you read it? Ed shows
how to question people so that they will reason with themselves, but he
also suggests and teaches. Ed is a master of positive influence.

I have wanted to try on the net my thought that the level of principles
is key, and the suggestion that there are some well defined, universally
acceptable reference perceptions or "standards" that have worked well for
a lot of people over time. Character education is, I think, a very useful
form of "social control" that is vitally important, no matter where it
comes from. Of course, it is also important that this same character
education is not misused, as historically has been the case in many
times, religions, places and cultures. Greg might call it a double-edged
sword. But the total absence is a disaster, for sure. That is why I think
it makes a good subject for discussion.

Wayne Hershberger 920511

......reflect upon the two concepts, energy and information, used in
your first sentence?. Do we experience the energy or the information,
or neither?

I recognize that my nervous system exists as part of that "Boss Reality"
we talk about. But the only thing I will ever know about it is by way of
the intensity signals. (Ed uses the word "sensing energy," which is
offered as a synonym. Clinicians take liberties with the terminology when
dealing with their customers). I cannot know what causes those intensity
signals. The term intensity signal is already a perception. My nerves
construct information from the intensity signals. As I study the nerves,
I form perceptions of them. I experience the information, and that
experience is a perception. It's ALL perception.

Do we, instead, experience phenomena (the constituents of time and
space), as you imply in your second sentence. How are the three
concepts related? Energy, information, and phenomena.

You are using the word phenomenon in some meaning or perception of yours
which is far from what I had in mind. You can strike the word from my
sentence. I was just talking about Systems concepts. A level of
perception.

Anyhow, "phenomena (the constituents of time and space)" are perceptions.
You perceive time. You perceive space. The phenomenon of control is a
perceptual construct.

It's all perception!

Dag Forssell
23903 Via Flamenco
Valencia, Ca 91355-2808
Phone (805) 254-1195 Fax (805) 254-7956
Internet: 0004742580@MCIMAIL.COM

2

I have comments in hand from Tom Bourbon (Nov 15), Bill Powers (Nov 16), Rick
Marken (Nov 16), and Martin Taylor (Nov 15).

In response to Martin, I agree with Rick's comments. Dynamic systems do not
control. I see a conflict of principle. In response to Tom: As I understand
it, the ecological folks deemphasize control and assume that it is not central
to behavior. Also in response to Martin: Yes, the far from equilibrium notion
(from Prigogine) is important to the dynamical systems theory. There has been
considerable work done on Self Organisation in the physical & biological
sciences. Prigoine has contributed some of the foundations to this & the
Ecological folks take this thrust seriously. There is a general committment
to extending these understandings to the analysis of Human Behavior.

In response to Bill, instead of talking about sky divers, I want to extend the
falling object example to coordinations in creatures - transitions from trots
to gallops by horses for example(see above comments on Self Organization).
Limb and finger coordinations have been studied in Kelso's lab and Turvey's
lab. I can supply references if they are of interest.

These are examples of coordinations that emerge without control (of the
coordination). The work is, however, limited in scope, and much more is
needed to establish the case. Others have followed with behavior patterns
that are more substantive (e.g., Ulrich & Thelen on the development of walking
by infants). Unfortunately, that work is open to alternative interpretations,
and does not really contribute to the case for dynamical systems theory.

I suspect a real problem for many with the dynamical systems approach is that
of intentionality. I do not agree that HPCT or anyone else deals with
intentionality in a satisfactory way.
There have been attempts to deal with intentionality as an
dynamical constraint. I hesitate to recommend the papers because I
have read them only sketchily, and I have not yet assimilated them. I found
them heavy going.

Although I am not yet convinced that anyone has a handle on intentionality I do
do regard it as a central issue.
Gavan Lintern
Aviation Research Laboratory
University of Illinois at Urbana Champaign
# 1 Airport Rd., Savoy, IL 61874
TEL: (217) 244-8637/6905 FAX: 244-8647

3

From Tom Bourbon [931130.0908]

I have comments in hand from Tom Bourbon (Nov 15), Bill Powers (Nov 16), Rick
Marken (Nov 16), and Martin Taylor (Nov 15).

Gavan, I am a little late at playing catch up after the Thanksgiving
holidays. Bill Powers and Rick Marken have already replied to your post,
but I was one of the addressees so here are a few remarks in reply.

In response to Martin, I agree with Rick's comments. Dynamic systems do not
control. I see a conflict of principle.

Bill and Rick have commented on this remark. Did you think Rick's reference
to dynamical systems theory was meant to include all dynamic systems? Many
of your "replies" are single terse sentences that require further
elaboration. For example, could you elaborate on the conflict of principle
that you see? What is the confluct and by what signs or clues do you
conclude that it exists?

In response to Tom: As I understand
it, the ecological folks deemphasize control and assume that it is not central
to behavior.

What do ecological theorists assume they are rejecting -- how do they
conceive of control, that it may be disregarded or deemphasized, as an
optional process?

Perceptual control theorists recognize that the process of control defines
life, if not exclusively, then in large measure. By what reasoning is a
psychological theory "ecological" if its adherents reject and deemphasize a
process that so fundamentally characterizes the interaction of organisms
and environments?

In response to Bill, instead of talking about sky divers, I want to extend the
falling object example to coordinations in creatures - transitions from trots
to gallops by horses for example(see above comments on Self Organization).
Limb and finger coordinations have been studied in Kelso's lab and Turvey's
lab. I can supply references if they are of interest.

Like Bill, I am disappointed that you so quickly abandoned your original
question and completely ignored Bill's reasoned reply. Changing the
subject is a procedure often followed by people bent on rejecting PCT in
spite of evidence in its favor. I am sure you do not want to appear to
engage in that practice.

We are familiar with the work of Kelso and Turvey and their associates.

These are examples of coordinations that emerge without control (of the
coordination). The work is, however, limited in scope, and much more is
needed to establish the case.

Results like that are common in the interactive tasks and modeling that I
study. In that work, unintended coordinations emerge all the time, between
people, hands, models, models and hands. The case is estabished. Now what?

What do you believe is the significance of the work on this subject by
Kelso, Turvey and others in their theoretical camp? What is the
significance of the routine documentation of unintended coordination by
PCTers? Does it matter that PCT models produce interactive, real-time
control *and also* produce the features of dynamical systems that mean so
much to Kelso and Turvey, but that their dynamical systems models cannot
produce control -- in light of the idea that control is pervasive in and
among living systems?

I suspect a real problem for many with the dynamical systems approach is that
of intentionality. I do not agree that HPCT or anyone else deals with
intentionality in a satisfactory way.

What do you mean by "intentionality?" What do you believe PCTers mean by
intentionality? What would be a satisfactory way to deal with
intentionality and where does PCT fail?

Until later,
Tom Bourbon
Department of Neurosurgry
University of Texas Medical School-Houston Phone: 713-792-5760
6431 Fannin, Suite 7.138 Fax: 713-794-5084
Houston, TX 77030 USA tbourbon@heart.med.uth.tmc.edu

ยทยทยท

In Message Thu, 25 Nov 1993 12:50:37 -0600, Gavan Lintern writes: