[From Rick Marken (931209.1900)]
Osmo Eerola (931229) --
Me:
The new idea is that behavior is an observable side effect of
the control of perceptual variables. This is a unique idea ..
Maybe so. To me it just seems to be "turning bottoms
up" i.e. renaming the inputs, outputs, and references in a simple,
classic feedback system block.
Well, let's see what you think after reading some of the PCT literature.
Try Powers' "Behavior: The control of perception" and "Living control
systems" and my "Mind readings". But, unless you really want to understand
the nature of the behavior of LIVING systems, you'll probably (as a
control engineer) just find PCT infuriating (for the reasons Bill gave
earlier today) . Your replies to my other statements suggest that you
didn't understand what I said. I suspect that this has more to do
with your lack of familiarity with PCT than with your mastery of
english (which puts a functional monolingual like myself to shame).
···
------
Hans Blom (931207) --
No, it [Hans' model] cannot [have conflict]. And neither can people,
in a way. We CAN have incompatible goals, however. We want to eat
our cake and have it. That is human, all too human.
Bill Powers (931207.0920 MST) replies:
But "incompatible goals" is what "conflict" MEANS in PCT. It's
exactly wanting to keep your piece of cake (meaning that you
mustn't eat it) and eat it too (meaning that you will no longer
have the piece of cake) that sets up a conflict: two independent
control systems simultaneously send opposing reference signals to
the same lower-level system (the one that is in charge of eating
cake). As a result, neither higher-level system can achieve its
goal. The solution is to reorganize: one higher-level goal could
be changed from "wanting to eat THIS piece of cake" to "wanting
to eat SOME piece of cake." Then one control system could save
THIS piece of cake while the other ate a DIFFERENT piece of cake.
End of conflict.
I think the topic of conflict is extremely important. I also think
that PCT (particularly HPCT) has some very interesting things to say
about it (as should be evident from Bill's comment above). Here are
some comments of mine on the topic of conflict that I made in reply
to a post from Ed Ford. I tried to post this some time ago but it never
made it to the net; let's see if it works this time.
-------
From Rick Marken (931129.1000)]
Ed Ford (931126.1000) --
When I make a
decision, if that decision is not in harmony with my
standards, which in turn, must be in harmony with my
values and beliefs, then conflict "within the HPCT" will
result.
Conflict can occur at ANY level of the perceptual control hierarchy;
what you call "standards" "values" and "beliefs" have no special
status as conflict producers. Conflict exists when a lower level
perceptual goal is being used in the service of achieving higher
level goals that require the lower level perception to have two
different values simultaneously. Very low level control systems,
like the ones controlling the perceived position of your body, can
be "in conflict" when used in the service of two inconsistent
goals -- like the goal of jumping in the pool and the goal of
avoiding that initial jolt of cold. You can't perceive yourself
as both jumping and not jumping at the same time.
If I make the choice to steal money
from a friend and I have a high level belief that such a
decision is wrong, I'll put myself in conflict.
The choice to steal money suggests that you have a higher
level goal (like feeding your child) that you are trying to
achieve by perceiving yourself stealing. The feeling that stealing
is wrong suggests that you have another goal (such as "honesty")
that is achieved by not stealing. The perception of stealing is
being used in the service of achieving two goals that require two
different settings of the same perception (stealing); one goal is
achieved be perceiving oneself stealing; the other is achieved by
perceiving oneself NOT stealing. Since you can't both steal and not
steal, you have a conflict. The conflict can be eliminated by
changing the higher level goals or the means used to achieve them.
In either case, what is needed is reorganization OR the ability to
go "up a level" and see things from the point of view of the systems
that are selecting the conflict producing goals (of "food for your
kid" and "honesty").
But to eat meat would be in
total conflict with my belief system.
This statement doesn't make a clear distinction between an error
signal that results from conflict vs an error signal that results
from poor control.
If you WANT to eat meat it is because you have a goal that is
achieved by eating meat. If you also want to eat only vegetables
then there is another goal that is achieved by eating no meat. The
conflicted perception is "what you eat"; you can't both eat meat
and not eat meat. If you had such a conflict, it would show up as
an inability to eat anything -- since eating meat creates error in
the vegetarian system and eating vegetables creates error in the
carnivore system; so you lose control of what you eat due to the
conflict producing higher level goals; both higher level systems
have large error signals due to the conflict.
The alternative is that there is no conflict at all -- you just
end up (almost) eating meat because you have poor control of your
ability to eat only vegetables. In this case, the error signal that
results from eating meat does not reflect the existence of an internal
conflict; just poor control. The meat produces a perception that
results in an error signal and appropriate corrective action is
eventually taken (you spit out the meat).
Your example of a vegetarian eating meat suggests that conflict
results when, for some arbitrary reason, a person decides to
perceive something that conflicts with one of their existing
"standards" (reference signals). You seem to be suggesting that people
would be conflict-free and happy if they just didn't do foolish
things like eating meat when they are vegetarian. But this is
not really a conflict. A conflict exists when a person really WANTS
to eat meat AND to not eat meat. The person has TWO goals that are
incompatible (in terms of lower order perceptions) -- eg. one goal
that can only be achieved by eating meat, another that can only be
achieved by not eating meat. The solution to a conflict like this
is not as simple as recognizing "I'm a vegetarian so I don't eat
meat". If that were all there were to it there would be no conflict
in the first place. The solution to the "vegetarian problem" as you
describe it (the vegetarian who eats some meat) is just to become
a more skillful controller (ie. become better at being a
"vegetarian"). No conflict resolution is necessary.
Conflict resolution is necessary when there really is a conflict;
ie. when a person really has incompatible goals -- or goals
that have been shown to be incompatible due to circumstance
(disturbance); for example, you have a vegetarian goal and you are
also starving to death (have a "food intake" goal) in an empty field
next to a sizzling sirloin. Real conflict exists when people have
REAL goals that are REALLY inconsistent. Conflicts can be solved by
"going up a level". "Going up a level" involves changing the
way we perceive the situation (you are seeing it from "a higher
level") -- something that is emphasized in clinical writings about
PCT -- but, more importantly I think, "going up a level" allows
one to see their conflict producing goals as "selectable", not as
"given". It seems to me that theraputic applications of PCT
should be aimed at helping lay people understand how to do "going
up a level".
Best
Rick