[From Rick Marken (920513 15:30)]
I have my references for 'standards' just like everyone else. If asked
I would say I like people (including myself) with high levels for what
I perceive as honesty, integrity, responsibility, and so on. It's difficult
to talk about 'standards' without having an idea of what constitute
'good ones'. So I suggest that we move this discussion from a discussion
of standards (just one type of perceptual variable) to the model that
supposedly informs our understanding of human nature. I might prefer
particular system concepts, standards (principles), programs, etc -- ie,
I might have a collection of references which can, over time and variations,
be perceived as a particular "ideology". That's just me -- my system that
grew up over the last 46 years. I'm not interested in pushing my ideology --
just one component of that ideology -- a model of human nature called HPCT.
So, what I believe in (as far as this audience is concerned) is a spreadsheet!
The 3 level spreadsheet hierarchy that is described in one of the papers in
my book (be sure to order a copy from Greg!!) captures what I believe is
the basic functional organization of a human being. Some things are missing--
like the reorganization system. But this model gives a good picture of
my image of an organized (grown up) purposeful adult. One nice thing about
this model is that it is ALL NUMBERS. The numbers that are perceptions
are functions of other numbers -- the function defines what is perceived.
Numbers are nice because people don't care that much about them. The
perception numbers at level 2 of the model, for example, could be
representations of the degree to which some standard (like "honesty") is
being perceived (in the spreadsheet level two perceptions are actually
functions of linear combinations of intensity perceptions). The spreadsheet
has four control systems at three levels; the reference for the highest
level systems are fixed (they are numerical constants) but they could be
changed randomly by a reorganizing system. The model acts to keep all
its perceptions matching all its references. So the level 3 systems adjust
the references to ALL level 2 systems (changing the reference NUMBERS) so
that the level 3 perceptions are maintained at the reference levels. The
spreadsheet does this even when you change the enviromental variables
(also numbers) on which the controlled perceptions are based -- that is,
it controls a hierarchy of perceptions in the context of changing
environmental disturbances and in the context of the changing control actions
of all the individual control systems.
If you give names to the numbers at each level of the hierarchy then
things can get personal. For example, if you think of system 1, level 2 as
controlling a perceptual "standard" called honesty (as one means of
controlling the higher order perceptions, which might be called system
concepts) then you have to say that the system is varying its reference
for honesty to control whatever perceptions are being controlled by the
higher order variable. This is why I say that I don't think that there
can be fixed references for ANY perception -- it's not because I'm pushing
moral relativism or personal autonomy or libertarianism. The only thing
I am pushing is the PCT MODEL (and I can envision it best and see it working
best in the spreadsheet implementation -- because I know what the numbers
mean; I know this is not the easiest way for many people to visualize the
model, but it does have that one nice feature -- it doesn't hit any emotional
buttons).
So I suggest that when we discuss these big philosophical issues, we try
(to the extent we can) to relate them to what we actually know --
the HCPT model. HPCT is a real, working model and many aspects of it have
been tested and passed with flying colors. There are many aspects of the
model that we don't understand (like how it could perceive something
like "honesty") any many things that will surely need to be added or changed
as a result of research (Greg's suggestion that higher order outputs may
influence lower level parameters besides references inputs, for example).
I think if we talk about functional organization more, and specific
perceptual variables and their references less, we might get a better
idea of what HPCT is about. The words (and the fact that people are
themselves control systems with their own references for standards
and whatever) can really get in the way. HPCT is HPCT -- it's not
liberalism, radicalism, libertarianism, judaism, mormonism, monotheism,
etc etc. It's a functional model that explains (purportedly) why people
behave according to any of these principles. The model is a bunch of
numbers that are functionally related to other numbers. It doesn't say
what it is "best" for those numbers to represent.
If there is any "value system" implied by the HPCT model it is just that
the model should WORK -- ie. it should be able to keep ALL its perceptual
numbers equal to all it's reference numbers. Anything that prevents the
model from doing that is something that should be "fixed".
One last point:
Dag Forssell (920513-2) says:
The Principles I wanted to draw attention to
are at the end in CAPS.
These values are COURAGE, CONVICTION, GENEROSITY, KINDNESS,
HELPFULNESS, HONESTY, HONOR, JUSTICE, TOLERANCE, THE SOUND USE OF TIME
AND TALENTS, FREEDOM OF CHOICE, GOOD CITIZENSHIP, THE RIGHT TO BE AN
INDIVIDUAL, AND THE RIGHT OF EQUAL OPPORTUNITY.
I offer the above list of Principles/Values as something that comes close
(at least as a start) to "finding clever ways to satisfy all of us."
The words in caps seem to describe perceptual VARIABLES -- one can perceive
degrees of courage, conviction, generosity, etc. How do I derive from the
HPCT model what value is the right value to set for each of these variables?
I just don't think PCT has anything to say about this other than "people
can control perceptual variables lke courage, conviction, etc.". See the
problem with talking about this stuff. People CARE about these things. I CARE
about these things. But you are claiming that certain levels of these variables
are RIGHT. If I say "NO" it looks like I'm in favor of lying, cheating and
being a chickenshit. When you say that there might be "RIGHT" levels
for certain perceptual variables (the "standards") , what I hear is
the claim that "I can set one of those level 2 reference numbers
to a CONSTANT in the spreadsheet hierarchy and everything will
work even better -- the only thing that I have to do is
find the RIGHT number". Well, I know that that is not true -- quantitatively.:
it's not true of numbers in a control hierarchy. If you believe that those
numbers are a representation of perceptual variables and that things like
honesty are perceptual variables, then I leave the conclusion to you.
But I am open to any model based (and research confirmed) evidence that
there are any RIGHT constant values for variables in the HPCT model.
I mean, HPCT may be my ideology, but it is open to test (that is one
NICE thing about numbers).
One more point (and violating my own injunction to
not talk about standards): You quote favorably from a book
about character education. Here is one statement:
The question, whose ethics, implies that there is no objective
reality about ethics and this is exactly what the ethical relativists
claim.
Do you say that there IS an objective reality about ethics? And just
as I was about to believe that it was all perception. I take it the
authors have access to that objective reality. Inquiring minds (like mine,
locked in their perceptual experience) want to know what it is.
"Such a position of normalness," writes Professor Philip H. Phenix,
[must be "normlessness" no? -- rm]
....is a denial that there are really any standards of right or
wrong, of better or worse, because the whole human endeavor appears
to be meaningless and without purpose...
Just speaking from the point of view of the PCT model, however, there
are indeed standards (principles) in this model; they are perceptual
variables and there are references for the value of these variables.
To the extent that principles deviate from these references they
are 'wrong'. Keeping principle perceptions at their references is
one of the MANY purposes of the model. If this model plunges me
into the abyss of meaninglessness -- then off I gooooo o o o o.
Best regards
Rick
ยทยทยท
**************************************************************
Richard S. Marken USMail: 10459 Holman Ave
The Aerospace Corporation Los Angeles, CA 90024
E-mail: marken@aero.org
(310) 336-6214 (day)
(310) 474-0313 (evening)