Starting Over Part II

Blank
From [ Marc Abrams (2003.05.05.1217) ]

Purpose: I hope to clarify and answer Fred, David,Dick, and others about the questions they have raised and to give some idea about where I want to go ( figuratively speaking ) and how I intend to get there. This will involve a little look at some personal history and current views I have.

Learning ( In all senses of the word ) HPCT is very important to me because I believe HPCT is very important in me being able to “understand” what I am most interested in, “Human Cognition”. I believe all human experience can be defined by the HPCT model. We are a long way from that realization. We don’t even agree on what “learning” really “means”. I’m not sure Bill is convinced either at this point. Toward this dual ( Cognition & HPCT ) quest of knowledge I would like, one day to be able to “define” what a “thought” is, Technically ( i.e. a specific meaning related to the HPCT model ). Is a “idea” simply a collection of Perceptions or is it one Perception, etc, What is “stress”? is another big question I would like an answer to. These and other “cognitive” questions are what I would want answered. I believe we can BEGIN to try and look at some of these questions. I don’t know how far we can get, but I do know we can make some progress toward the end of “answering” those questions. In order to do this I believe we need HPCT. We need to understand how the Perceptual Hierarchy, Awareness, “emotion”, Reorganization and Memory interact to give us our human experience. I don’t much care, but wouldn’t throw away, how the “physics” of Memory and Awareness and “emotions” work. I “know” what they do. I am interested in what “effects” they have on the Hierarchy and how the combination of all four “produce” “cognition”. Boy, would I love to have a Technical definition for “cognition” ( i.e. one that uses other Technical definitions to describe still others. :-)). I believe that through thoughtful experiments and data collection we can move in this direction. It will not be easy. It should be great fun.

We all “learn” best by doing. That seems to be the consensus of opinion among the “experts”. I am no different. I am an amateur analyst who is looking to become a professional Researcher/Analyst. I happen to do it well. I also “understand” that I am woefully deficient in certain areas ( math and English composition to name two :slight_smile: ) to be as good as can be. I am working on it. It is difficult to get a “public” education where your underwear is constantly exposed and has holes in it. It can be embarrassing at times. But I can take the heat. :slight_smile: The discovery of new found knowledge and my ability to “apply” it make the “expense” seem very small. As crazy as it may seem, this under-formally educated kid from Brooklyn, NY has a chance to contribute something to the betterment of human kind. That in, of itself, is kind of amazing. How many people ever get a chance to say that to themselves, let alone tell the world.:-). Delusional?, maybe, but I don’t think so. I’m writing this post after taking my meds. LOL.

These last few days have been very illuminating. I do a great deal of “reflection” and “introspection”. It helps me stay focused. Historically I have 3 major “learning” problems I have to fight to overcome. The most important is my “discovery” and “understanding” of “ideas” far outpaces my ability to “communicate” them.effectively. The last few days are evidence of that. :-)The second is my “cultural” upbringing on the streets of NYC. I tend to talk in short choppy sentences and in “code”. Since everyone in my neighborhood communicates the same way I don’t see anything wrong with it. If you add problem #1 with problem #2 you got trouble in river city ( see, some code LOL ). Add to that my admitted lack of writing skills and it doesn’t add up to a nice picture. I much prefer to talk. Bruce G. and Bill can attest to that. LOL. and in talking, I do reasonably well. :slight_smile: I am working on all three.

On this net I have some history. Most of it probably not very good. Just ask Ken Kitzke. :-). I can honestly say I am a different person then the Marc Abrams you might have known 3 years ago. In fact, since Nov '02, I am not the same. I don’t know if I’m “better” or “worse” then before. That is for others to decide, but I will tell you I am different. Many things have happened and none worth repeating here, but I am not the “demon” some might make me out to be. I will leave it at this. Ken K. I know you are reading my posts. You may not communicate with me, and I wish you would, but you would not have been able to wish Dick Robertson a happy birthday if you didn’t read his post till the end, where is, where he asked for people to respond to his birthday. same for you Stefan and Phil. I hope you guys will give me a second chance.

Ok, on to business.The business of “Cognition”

I will assume here that everyone knows how a control system “works” and how the PCT model “works”. I believe that “cognition” and all aspects of it, will eventually be “explained” by the HPCT model, Memory, Awareness, Reorganization and “emotion”. In fact, in certain respects, it already has. I am not currently interested in “changing” anything. We have much to explore with what is presently on our plates. I use the “HPCT model” as a code for Perceptions. That is what the Hierarchy is and does. It produces, modifies and maintains Perceptions. That is the “job” of the Hierarchy. It is my “understanding” that different “aspects” of “cognition” are “involved” with the “production”, “maintenance”, and “modifications” of Perceptions. “Behavior” is the result of our attempts to maintain Perceptions in certain “states”, and as a result “produces” new Perceptions and “modifies” old ones. All of this with the help of Awareness and Memory.

Perceptions are “built” up from Perceptual Signals; Conscious Perceptions ( not every Perception is a conscious one ) are Perceptions+ Awareness. Awareness currently being defined in B:CP as; A subjective phenomenon associated with reception of Perceptual Signals. Here I am only interested in Conscious Perceptions and will simply refer to them a CP’s for short. ( Remember, I’m from Brooklyn LOL )

Conscious Perceptions, Memory, Reorganization and “emotions” provide us with the different “states” of “reality” we experience. (i.e. The sum of all “experienced” “states of reality” = “cognition”)

Please note. These were taken from a 1989 paper in Living Control System II, These definitions post-date B:CP’s definition of Reality. The only difference was the addition of the term “Constructed Reality” and it’s definition

  • Directly Experienced Reality (DER); The world as subjectively experienced, including “mental activities”, “feelings”, and “concepts” as well as subjective “impression” of a three-dimensional outside universe. This is all there really is. It’s what you can’t doubt “experiencing”, because all you have is the experience. Nothing can be more real`than that.

*Deduced Reality (DR); A subdivision of DER. It consists of all the statements you can make about “experiences”, all the “opinions” you have, all the “doubt’s”, and “beliefs”, in sum our “thoughts”.

*Constructed Reality (CR): Another subdivision of DER. Imagined Reality. This is a world that consists of Perceptions that are generated completely within the brain; signals produced by some means or other that do not end up as actions, but which substitute for the Perceptions that normally depend on external events, whatever they are. The idea that there are external events is part of Deduced Reality. Constructed/Imagined Reality is where we “plan”, “dream”, Imagine, and “make models” of the Reality that we have no way to experience directly. Part of Deduced Reality says that Constructed Reality is produced by internal feedback loops in the brain. If you want to “argue” about that, you will be arguing in terms of Deduced Reality.

Lets summarize at this point. PLEASE DO NOT NIT OVER THIS SUMMARY. I AM NOT TRYING TO DEFINE A LEXICON FOR HPCT COGNITION IN THESE PASSAGES

This is a first time pass and a public review process of my “understanding”. If I don’t expose it I can’t learn.

I want to “study” “cognition”. I define “cognition” as the sum of all “experienced” “states of reality”

Reality States are comprised of Cp’s, Memory, Reorganization, and “emotions”.

Conscious Perceptions (CP’s); Here I am interested in only how CP’s are “produced”. They are “produced” by our sensory receptors ( olfactory, taste, visual, auditory, tactile ) and Memory. CP’s are “built” from, currently, the 1st Order “level” up to the 10th Order “level”. Bill, introspectively “labeled” and “defined” this Order/ “levels”. I will not discuss the “labels” for each of these Orders because they are not important for this current discussion. It is only important to know that CP’s start at the 1st Order. As they go up the Hierarchy you have n+1, which translates to; at each Order, that Order is that which it is “labeled” plus the Order/“level” below it in the Hierarchy. This is true for each Order “level”. Order 3 is; Order 3 + Order 2. WHATEVER the labels happen to be. So if I was Aware of something at Order “level” 5, that would mean I would “know” it as Order "level 5 + Order “level” 4, which then implies I also know 4 + 3, which implies knowledge of and 3 + 2, and 2 + 1, and 1. This is how CP’s are built. This is fundamental Every CP we have is "built with one or more Orders/“levels” of the Hierarchy. Notice, Awareness does not reside in the Hierarchy. Think of Awareness as this encircling cloud or a levitating ball that can point a beam of “light” at any Order/“level” or combination of Orders/“levels” at any time.

Fred N. here is where your answer comes in In both Powers’ and Schons’ “up a level” or “ladder of Inference” or your “metasystem” the “theory” behind it is the same. “Meanings” are added to “concepts” as you ask “why” ( going up ) and “how” ( going down ). It is very unclear that either of these methods is talking about the Hierarchy of Control Systems. They both seem to be talking about “inference”, a currently undefined word in HPCT. When doing the “method of levels” you go “up” and “down” I don’t know what. Take any concept. You should be able to go “up” 3 or 4 “levels” without breaking a sweat. Well if you start at a relatively high “level”, say, "level 9 ? & go up 4 “levels” What is “level” 13 in the Hierarchy?. So in answer to your question, I don’t know what it means to go “up” or “down” a “level” yet. I will try to find out.

David I believe that “stress” = Error It’s that simple. Now lets see if we can demonstrate this with the biofeedback equipment. :slight_smile:

I’m exhausted. I am cooked for the day. I planned on doing much more but I can’t. I am going to post this and see what kind of response I get. If I get none I will go slink off the net and work with the few people who might be interested. The last few days have been tiring.

Marc

Blank Bkgrd6.gif