State of Mind

I think there are people who think that either they or someone else is possessed by some demon. And, from my own experience, their behavior can be quite different under this state of mind than that of a normal person.
[From Kenny Kitzke (2003.01.02 9:15 EST)]
<Bruce Nevin (2002.12.31 16:25 EST)>

···

At 04:28 PM 12/20/2002, Kenneth Kitzke Value Creation Systems wrote:
<Could be that they take certain categorizations of the state of self or other as license for ‘irresponsible’ behavior. For cross-cultural differences in what’s “normal” when drunk, see:
Edgerton, Robert B. & Craig MacAndrew, Drunken Comportment: A Social ExplanationWhether or not their explanation is valid, their observations are pertinent.>

Your point is pertinent and consistent with my questioning, “Just how effectively does PCT explain behavior when one’s state of mind is altered?”

I did not list being drunk (on alcohol) as one of those specific altered states of mind, but it is part of a broader one I did mention: drugs. So, thanks for the tip on drunkenness. I can imagine some scenarios which I think you post implies where the altered state is planned:

A person intentionally gets drunk at a party hoping their adultery will be excused by their spouse. Or, the entire insanity plea concerning crime could be a ploy. Is this the kind of thing you were suggesting, or which the book claims?

That would seem fairly consistent with PCT. But, my question involved more altered states of mind not desired: brain injury or disease, extreme fear or anger, etc., and how well PCT could explain behavior under such conditions.

Happy New Year!

[From Fred Nickols (2003.01.02.1041 EST)] --

Kenny:

Your most recent comments reminded me of a pattern I spotted in the
military so I went back and checked your original list and found emotion on
it. I am thinking in particular of stress in the form of threat, fear,
panic, etc.

During the Viet Nam war, my ship was rammed by another ship moving at high
speed (fortunately, only one person died) and there were three behavioral
patterns that encompassed all reactions:

         Some panicked and ran.
         Some panicked and froze.
         Some kept their wits about them and did what was called for.

I wonder what kinds of mechanisms govern the three?

Regards,

Fred Nickols
Distance Consulting
nickols@safe-t.net
www.nickols.us

[From Kenny Kitzke (2003.01.02.1115 EST)]

<Fred Nickols (2003.01.02.1041 EST)>

<During the Viet Nam war, my ship was rammed by another ship moving at high

speed (fortunately, only one person died) and there were three behavioral

patterns that encompassed all reactions:

     Some panicked and ran.

     Some panicked and froze.

     Some kept their wits about them and did what was called for.

I wonder what kinds of mechanisms govern the three?>

This seems to be a good illustration that the mechanism IS NOT SR behaviorism! Same environmental stimulus, radically different responses.

PCT gives much better answers as to the mechanism, especially for running or doing what was called for under this new perception. But, being “frozen stiff,” which is a credible reaction to extreme fear, is interesting to me and also is in my Bible. Does PCT explain this behavior? Is it an indication that “reorganization” rather than “behavior/observable action” is taking place? Is it a time when a person just sort of “gives up” controlling and behavior (any observable or detectable action) stops until the input perception changes?

Indeed, fear is one emotion that can affect your state of mind and perhaps your ability to control. Anger too. Are emotions hard-wired, learned, controlled, internal inputs, etc.? And, how do emotions affect our behavior according to PCT and the model?

The last time I was afraid was when I was plowing my driveway after a wet, four-inch snow storm. I heard a loud noise above that sounded like a limb broke off a tree over my head. I behaved by looking up to see. As it turned out, I had a hood on and my sudden look upward showed me the inside of my hood. So, I tried to duck.

But, the noise told me the limb hit my garage. When I finally looked the roof had deflected it from hitting me. This fear was significant but did not freeze me. Had I not had the hood on, and saw a limb large enough to kill me heading my way, I wonder if I would have froze? Would that be controlling? I probably would have called out to God (that would be PCT) but what if I just froze and couldn’t think or act at all? Would PCT explain that condition or is it an exception to controlling?

[From Kenny Kitzke (2003.01.02.1115 EST)]

< <Fred Nickols (2003.01.02.1041 EST)>
< <
< <During the Viet Nam war, my ship was rammed by another ship moving at high
< <speed (fortunately, only one person died) and there were three behavioral
< <patterns that encompassed all reactions:
< <
< < Some panicked and ran.
< < Some panicked and froze.
< < Some kept their wits about them and did what was called for.

< I wonder what kinds of mechanisms govern the three?>
<
< This seems to be a good illustration that the mechanism IS NOT SR behaviorism! Same environmental stimulus, radically different responses.

I think only if you get different responses from the same subject.

< Indeed, fear is one emotion that can affect your state of mind and perhaps your ability to control.

< Anger too. Are emotions hard-wired, learned, controlled, internal inputs, etc.?

< And, how do emotions affect our behavior according to PCT and the model?

I think fear is, itself, a state of mind. Have we established which comes first the emotional state (perception) or the physiological changes (adrenalin, body chemistry changes, etc.)? Does the reaction ‘bubble up’ from lower levels or ‘trickle down’ from higher levels?

I think fear can alter other states of mind. But to say fear affects your state of mind sounds like fear is something other than a state of mind. Is a state a mind the same thing as a perception?

If I hear a noise above my head, hearing is a lower level function. This will have to bubble up to a level where I can classify it as dangerous or normal. Then at this level I can reorganize for a course of action. Any processing that can be called fear will take place at a higher level.

OR

Evolution has instilled a fear (or some such emotion or trigger) at some very low level because grounded mammals have developed protection against carnivorous birds.

Steve O

[From Bruce Nevin (2003.02.01 12:52 EST)]

[From
Kenny Kitzke (2003.01.02 9:15 EST)]
<Bruce Nevin (2002.12.31 16:25
EST)>

Could be that they take certain categorizations of the state of self
or other as license
for ‘irresponsible’ behavior.
For cross-cultural differences in what’s “normal” when drunk,
see:

Edgerton, Robert B. & Craig MacAndrew, Drunken Comportment: A
Social Explanation

[…]

I can
imagine some scenarios which I think you post implies where the altered
state is planned:

A person intentionally gets drunk at a party hoping their adultery will
be excused by their spouse. Or, the entire insanity plea concerning
crime could be a ploy. Is this the kind of thing you were
suggesting, or which the book claims?

That would seem fairly consistent with PCT. But, my question
involved more altered states of mind not desired: brain injury or
disease, extreme fear or anger, etc., and how well PCT could explain
behavior under such conditions.

This also applies to states not chosen - see e.g. Dostoyevsky’s account
of perceptions of epilepsy by self and other (reflections of his own
experience) in The Idiot. This seems not chosen - unless you
follow Freud and suppose that D. chose epilepsy out of guilt at
having wanted his father to die.
In general, a given state is identified and given a socially/culturally
shared label by others as by self - “Drunk”,
“demon-possessed”, “brain injured”,
“diseased”, etc. Certain capacities, limitations, proclivities,
etc. are expected of people who are identified and labelled as being in
this state. These expectations differ from one culture to another.
The book that I cited is about such differences in what people expect of
a drunk person. My surmise is that not only drunkenness but also many of
the other socially identified states are freighted differently with
expectations depending upon the social/cultural context. Some conditions
or states may have seemingly different labels in different cultures, e.g.
“demon possession” and shamanic states, so what is
same/different may not be obvious.
There’s a comment about Drunken Comportment that may be useful
at

http://www.peele.net/lib/diseasing6.html#back34

and a very brief review at

http://www.ryerson.ca/~soc/maccra.html

One generalization that they make seems to be that drunkenness sanctions
a “time out” from some but not all cultural restrictions of
propriety, and that cultures differ not only as to which restrictions are
relaxed but also as to what is prohibited or restricted as improper in
the first place.

This perception of drunkenness as a “time out” from propriety
may itself be a culture trait that has spread by contact of peoples. I am
recalling the account (by Herodotus) of decision making by the
Persians:

“It is also their general practice to deliberate upon affairs of
weight when they are drunk; and then on the morrow, when they are sober,
the decision to which they came the night before is put before them by
the master of the house in which it was made; and if it is then approved
of, they act on it; if not, they set it aside. Sometimes, however, they
are sober at their first deliberation, but in this case they always
reconsider the matter under the influence of wine.”

http://irantarikh.com/customs.htm

This reflects a perception of the nature (and social function) of
drunkenness that seems to me quite different from the “time
out” generalization. I wonder whether, if Alexander had not been
victorious, we might have inherited and spread to others a different and
perhaps more healthy set of cultural norms about intoxication and about
drugs in general.

    /Bruce

Nevin

···

At 09:38 AM 1/2/2003, Kenneth Kitzke Value Creation Systems wrote:

At 04:28 PM 12/20/2002, Kenneth Kitzke Value Creation Systems wrote:

Indeed, fear is one emotion that
can affect your state of mind and perhaps your ability to control.
Anger too. Are emotions hard-wired, learned, controlled, internal
inputs, etc.? And, how do emotions affect our behavior
according to PCT and the model?

The last time I was afraid was when I was plowing my driveway after a
wet, four-inch snow storm. I heard a loud noise above that sounded
like a limb broke off a tree over my head. I behaved by looking up
to see. As it turned out, I had a hood on and my sudden look upward
showed me the inside of my hood. So, I tried to duck.

But, the noise told me the limb hit my garage. When I finally
looked the roof had deflected it from hitting me. This fear was
significant but did not freeze me. Had I not had the hood on, and
saw a limb large enough to kill me heading my way, I wonder if I would
have froze? Would that be controlling? I probably would have
called out to God (that would be PCT) but what if I just froze and
couldn’t think or act at all? Would PCT explain that condition or
is it an exception to controlling?
[From Bill Powers (2003.01.02.1110 MST)]

Kenny Kitzke (2003.01.02.1115
EST)–

PCT gives much better answers as to the mechanism, especially for
running or doing what was called for under this new >perception.
But, being “frozen stiff,” which is a credible reaction to
extreme fear, is interesting to me and also is in my >Bible.
Does PCT explain this behavior?

No, but if its basic principles are understood and applied, they can lead
to hypotheses that could be tested. One simple hypothesis (which has been
mentioned many times on CSGnet) is that freezing is the result of a
sudden conflict that calls for two opposing actions (or incompatible
actions) to be produced at the same time. The two control systems
involved produce maximum output, each canceling the other, either leaving
a “virtual reference level” (as Kent McClelland called it)
between the two opposed goals, or a state of rigidity due to actual
opposed muscle tensions.

Not all people are organized the same way, so more than one kind of
conflicted behavior can be seen. A simple test that I devised many years
ago gives some insight into how people react to conflict. As
experimenter, you join your hands together with the forefingers together
and sticking out, and the other fingers interlaced (sort of like
“here’s the church and here’s the steeple,” with the two
forefingers being the steeple). Then you ask the other person in the
experiment to track your two fingers with his or her own (single) finger,
as you move your fingers around in space fairly briskly. The idea is to
make tracking possible, but somewhat difficult.

At some point during the tracking, after the other person has shown some
skill at it, you abruptly separate your hands, the forefingers moving
apart in opposite directions. Some people will freeze immediately and
stay that way for some time. Others will freeze for an instant, then
either pick one forefinger and go on tracking, or track a point somewhere
between the fingers. Few people do not at least pause for a second or
two, though some, during this pause, will oscillate their finger between
the two target fingers., as though the conflict has made the control
system(s) unstable.

PCT doesn’t, by itself and without the need for any thought,
“explain” this sort of behavior, but it provides tools with
which we can work out possible explanations. By “we” I mean, of
course, those who make an actual attempt to find testable explanations
rather than just trying to think up problems for someone else to
solve.

Best,

Bill P.

Is it an indication that “reorganization” rather than
“behavior/observable action” is taking place? Is it a
time when a person just sort of “gives up” controlling and
behavior (any observable or detectable action) stops until the input
perception changes?

From [Kenny Kitzke (12.18.2002)]
PCT Friends:
As we head into 2003, I am preparing a study of how PCT explains behavior under various states of mind.
We have some pretty convincing demo models that show how behavior seems to work when a “normal” person sits before a computer screen and willingly tries to keep a cursor on a target or a rubber band knot on a dot. Our behavior in this state of mind appears to be what we do to control our perceptions.
My study will attempt to determine whether PCT continues to adequately explain human behavior when our mind is in other states or conditions which would not be like such a “normal” person willingly doing an experiment.
Here are some altered states of mind I would like to consider:
a) one impaired by injury
b) one impaired by disease
c) one impaired by old age
d) one altered by sleeping
e) one altered by emotion
f) one altered by drugs
g) one altered by torture
h) one altered by propaganda
i) one altered by hypnosis
j) one altered by intentional deception of reality by others
k) one altered by demon possession (if there is such a thing).
If anyone has some opinions or has read about or done experiments about how well PCT (or any other theory of psychology for that matter) might explain what people do while in such “abnormal” or altered states of mind, I would appreciate hearing from you either on the group or privately.
As I collect information and prepare a study paper on this, I will be happy to share it with all who are interested in such understanding or have contributed to the effort.
With only 12 days left in the year, may 2003 be perceived as a wonderful, satisfying and controlled year for you, despite what may be some terrible conditions perceived in the world environment in which we live.
Peace and Happy New Year!

···

Kenny,

You will certainly want to look at the experiment done by Dick Robertson et
al., just recently published.

Robertson, Richard. J., Goldstein, David. M., Mermel, Michael, & Musgrave,
Melanie (1999). Testing the self as a control system: Theoretical and
methodological issues. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies,
50(6), 571-580.

This could form the part of the basis for your design. Other tests in your
list might be a little more "difficult" to conduct, given the restrictions
on subject treatment. Clarification of those restrictions would certainly
be available from other members of the group.

BTW, all people _are_ normal from a PCT point of view, controlling
perceptions under different environmental (internal / external) constraints
or contexts. I know that the phrase "states of mind" may be problematic,
but you are the author of this prospectus. Many of the items in the list
are really the same from the control system's point of view, only different
for an observer. "Demon possession" could only come from you, Kenny, and I
suggest you strike that from the list, since there is no way to test for
spiritual possession. lol!

I only replied because I wanted to quickly take this thread (where have I
been? ask me) back to the respected member's reseach I used as a basis for
my experimental design. I suggest you first huddle with members who have
done this kind of research before you move past a prospectus. Lotta stuff
here. If you really want to contribute to the literature, be sure of what
you intend to measure.

Cordially,

--Bryan Thalhammer
Chicago, IL

···

From [Kenny Kitzke (12.18.2002)]

PCT Friends:

As we head into 2003, I am preparing a study of how PCT explains behavior
under various states of mind.
...

Here are some altered states of mind I would like to consider:
a) one impaired by injury
b) one impaired by disease
c) one impaired by old age
d) one altered by sleeping
e) one altered by emotion
f) one altered by drugs
g) one altered by torture
h) one altered by propaganda
i) one altered by hypnosis
j) one altered by intentional deception of reality by others
k) one altered by demon possession (if there is such a thing).

[From Mike
Acree (2002.12.18.1300 PST)]

[Kenny Kitzke (12.18.2002)]–

···

As has already been pointed
out, some of these states would be unethical to induce in research
participants. But the CSGNet archive contains a wealth of data for a
number of them.

Mike

[From Fred Nickols (2002.12.18.1633)] --

[Kenny Kitzke (12.18.2002)]--
As has already been pointed out, some of these states would be unethical
to induce in research participants. But the CSGNet archive contains a
wealth of data for a number of them.

Mike

As has been noted in politics for a long time now, in much of corporate
America lately, and in the military most recently, "ethics shmethics" so
bring on the thumbscrews, the rack and the iron maiden. Let's find out if
there's really anything to this PCT stuff.

From an old guy controlling for a state of inebriation during the holiday
season. (By the way, Kenny, you left "drunken stupor" off your list.)

A happy holiday season to all...

Fred Nickols
nickols@safe-t.net

[From Bruce Nevin (12.18.2002 14:50 EST)]
In a message dated 12/18/2002 2:53:56 PM Eastern Standard Time, bnevin@CISCO.COM writes:

Thanks Bruce. I did not know this. Are there any sources of his work that I can access that you know about? It may have a valuable connection. Martin is not a frequent poster but I think I can find an address to ask him directly.

Peace and best wishes,

Kenny

As has already been pointed out, some of these states would be unethical to induce in research participants. But the CSGNet archive contains a wealth of data for a number of them.
[From Kenny Kitzke (2002.12.20)]

<Mike Acree (2002.12.18.1300 PST)>

<

Yes, indeed. But, why could not one investigate or test the behavior of someone already in these types of states to see if the PCT model seems to apply? What would be the ethics question there if there is willingness?

I am a cripple when it comes to using the computer for searches. Believe it or not, I have never gone into the archives. I have the disc I bought from Dag and can’t even get it to work on my Mac. But, I am willing to learn, when I want something bad enough. Certainly I’ll look what I can already dig out of the archives. Thanks for the encouragement and idea.

Peace and best wishes my Hawaii guy!

Kenny

[From Kenny Kitzke (2002.12.20)]

<Fred Nickols (2002.12.18.1633)>

<As has been noted in politics for a long time now, in much of corporate

America lately, and in the military most recently, “ethics shmethics” so

bring on the thumbscrews, the rack and the iron maiden. Let’s find out if

there’s really anything to this PCT stuff.>

Oh, Fred, I think PCT explains very well all this unethical behavior in normal human beings. If they practiced yoga or something, would it help them? Can MOL or PCT change such behavior? And, under what state of mind? These are the things I am wondering about.

<From an old guy controlling for a state of inebriation during the holiday

season. (By the way, Kenny, you left “drunken stupor” off your list.)>

Drunken stupor was not specifically included but it clearly falls under the drug category for me. Enjoy yourself, Fred, but control for some other things too, like not driving. I no longer have this variable to control, the diabetes pretty much limits any alcohol consumption. I have had to learn (reorganize?) how to have fun without it. :sunglasses:

To you too. There does seem to be a different environment to be perceived this time of year.

Kenny

From [Kenny Kitzke (2002.12.20)]

<You will certainly want to look at the experiment done by Dick Robertson et

al., just recently published.

Robertson, Richard. J., Goldstein, David. M., Mermel, Michael, & Musgrave,

Melanie (1999). Testing the self as a control system: Theoretical and

methodological issues. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies,

50(6), 571-580.>

Thanks Bry. Excellent. I have been postulating a Twelfth Level (of self) or a Control System that controls the PCT system of the mind for a number of years. These guys are my tennis buddies on CSG. I suspect they know more about self and control than they do about tennis based upon our play in St. Louis. :sunglasses:

<BTW, all people are normal from a PCT point of view, controlling

perceptions under different environmental (internal / external) constraints

or contexts.>

I think that it would be more accurate to say that PCT assumes as a condition of applicability that people have “normal” mental abilities, i.e., not impaired in function. But, we know there are states of impairment that affects the loop. Right? This is a dilemma that has stumped me.

<I know that the phrase “states of mind” may be problematic,

but you are the author of this prospectus. Many of the items in the list

are really the same from the control system’s point of view, only different

for an observer.>

That is a helpful point of view. The observer versus the subject and what is going on. Thanks again.

<“Demon possession” could only come from you, Kenny, and I

suggest you strike that from the list, since there is no way to test for

spiritual possession. lol!>

I won’t divulge whether I just threw it in to perturb you. :sunglasses: However, I think there are people who think that either they or someone else is possessed by some demon. And, from my own experience, their behavior can be quite different under this state of mind than that of a normal person. Remember “The Exorcist?” Supposedly based on a real observation or is it just fantasy?

<I only replied because I wanted to quickly take this thread (where have I

been? ask me) back to the respected member’s reseach I used as a basis for

my experimental design. I suggest you first huddle with members who have

done this kind of research before you move past a prospectus. Lotta stuff

here. If you really want to contribute to the literature, be sure of what

you intend to measure.>

I can only try to extend the possibilities for understanding humans and confirm or contest what others may have done. Where have you been??

Kenny

[From Dick Robertson,2002.12.21.1541CST]

Holiday cheers to all!

Kenneth Kitzke Value Creation Systems wrote:

From [Kenny Kitzke
(2002.12.20)]

<You will certainly want to look
at the experiment done by Dick Robertson et

al., just recently published.

Robertson, Richard. J., Goldstein,
David. M., Mermel, Michael, & Musgrave,

Melanie (1999). Testing the self as
a control system: Theoretical and

methodological issues. International
Journal of Human-Computer Studies,

50(6), 571-580.>

Thanks Bry. Excellent.
I have been postulating a Twelfth Level (of self) or a Control System that
controls the PCT system of the mind for a number of years.

There is another way to look at it, and that is that perhaps a human organism
is slowly reorganizing throughout life and there is no fully developed
highest order, just a certain amount of random excitement of the systems
level that keeps one “searching” for commands to systems like the self-system.

These guys are my
tennis buddies on CSG. I suspect they know more about self and control
than they do about tennis based upon our play in St. Louis. :sunglasses:
We’ll see about that next summer. ;-).
Best, Dick R.

···

I

[From Kenny Kitzke (2002.12.21]

<Dick Robertson,2002.12.21.1541CST>

<There is another way to look at it, and that is that perhaps a human organism is slowly reorganizing throughout life and there is no fully developed highest order, just a certain amount of random excitement of the systems level that keeps one “searching” for commands to systems like the self-system.>

Sure, there are many ways to look at ourselves. But, I suspect that there is only one way that accurately and scientifically describes how a human being lives/behaves.

PCT is a revolutionary start in explaining how the behavior of living things interact with and function in the external environment. However, I don’t see PCT explaining much about any control loops existing totally within the human being. Do you?

Speculatively, this is where the self and self control comes into play in our unique human species–different and higher than all other life forms.

I tried, unsuccessfully, to get a copy of the referenced paper off the Internet. Is there a way for you to send it to me electronically, or do you have a printed copy you could mail to me? I’d like to read it. I suppose I can find a copy of the Journal at one of the Pittsburgh libraries. It just is a pain for me, a perception I would like to control and avoid.

<We’ll see about that next summer. ;-).>

Make sure you and David bring your tennis racquets to the conference in La La Land. I hope my dear wife will also come. If so, we will challenge the two of you to a winner takes all match (where the losers buy dinner).

May you have a healthy and happy 2003!

Kenny

The LawstSheep

[From Dick Robertson,2002.12.24.1601CST]

Kenneth Kitzke Value Creation Systems wrote:

[From Kenny Kitzke
(2002.12.21]
<Dick Robertson,2002.12.21.1541CST>

<There is another way to look at
it, and that is that perhaps a human organism is slowly reorganizing throughout
life

Sure, there are
many ways to look at ourselves. But, I suspect that there is only
one way that accurately and scientifically describes how a human being
lives/behaves.
Do you mean that there is only one correct explanation–which hasn’t been
discovered yet–or are you implying that you know the right answer, but
you have to be asked before you give it?
PCT is a revolutionary
start in explaining how the behavior of living things interact with and
function in the external environment. However, I don’t see PCT explaining
much about any control loops existing totally within the human being.
Do you?
Certainly. When I experience some sort of problem, or, to put it
in PCT terms, an error occurs in (let’s say) some Principle level system,
which then leads to activating (i.e. turning up the gain) on some “problem
solving” Program under its control–and that, in turn, results in using
(what Bill P. sometimes called the “imagination errow”) to assemble components
of the problem solution from memories, resulting in an imagined, or, if
you like, a hypothetical solution which is perceived (ultimately) by the
Principle we started with, and accompanied by a reduction in the original
error–all that would be a “control loop existing wholly within the human
being.” OK?
Speculatively, this
is where the self and self control comes into play in our unique human
species–different and higher than all other life forms.
OK, although there seems to be some research suggesting that higher primates
also possess some kind of rudimentary self system.
I tried, unsuccessfully,
to get a copy of the referenced paper off the Internet. Is there
a way for you to send it to me electronically, or do you have a printed
copy you could mail to me? I’d like to read it. I suppose I
can find a copy of the Journal at one of the Pittsburgh libraries.
It just is a pain for me, a perception I would like to control and avoid.
Sure, send me a snailmail address and I will send you the “self” paper
and also my chapter , “Involuntary learning of Voluntary Action,” from
Wayne Hershberger’s book _Volitional Action_that might also hold
some interest for you with your project.
<We’ll see about
that next summer. ;-).>
Make sure you and David bring your
tennis racquets to the conference in La La Land. I hope my dear wife
will also come. If so, we will challenge the two of you to a winner
takes all match (where the losers buy dinner).

You’re on.

May you have a healthy
and happy 2003!
Thank you and Merry Christmas to you.
Best, Dick R.

However, I don’t see PCT explaining much about any control loops existing totally within the human being. Do you?
Speculatively, this is where the self and self control comes into play in our unique human species–different and higher than all other life forms.
[From Kenny Kitzke (2002.12.25)]

<Dick Robertson,2002.12.24.1601CST>

<Do you mean that there is only one correct explanation–which hasn’t been discovered yet–>

I “suspect” there is only one correct explanation for how a human mind or brain actually works. I don’t think it is discovered yet, do you?

What there are are lots of theories of how it might work, at least under certain conditions. You offered a possibility. Bill Powers certainly has. In fact, there are thousands of people who have expressed possible explanations.

<or are you implying that you know the right answer, but you have to be asked before you give it?>

I am so far from thinking or implying that I have the right answer that I can’t imagine why that would even come to your mind?

I have some theories too and described a few at CSG Conferences in presentations and papers. I am not into publishing in scientific journals however, or writing books. So, it seems that you take your theories much more seriously than I do? And, that is fine. It is more a hobby with me.

Now, PCT seems to explain pretty well what is going on when we are playing tennis. That is in movement, strokes and even playing according to some rules.

I like the idea too that we do that for a higher level purpose(s), perhaps for principles we hold dear or concepts we live by.

But, as we move into HPCT and the why’s and how’s of all that in human beings, I think we get more and more speculative, even inventing a mysterious “reorganization system” (separate from the control system loops used for behavior) to explain what HPCT cannot.

This upper level stuff is fascinating and of more interest to me than making models or trying to explain economics with a control theory model. That’s why it’s nice to have a group with different interests and knowledge bases.

Kenny said:

<Certainly. When I experience some sort of problem, or, to put it in PCT terms, an error occurs in (let’s say) some Principle level system, which then leads to activating (i.e. turning up the gain) on some “problem solving” Program under its control–and that, in turn, results in using (what Bill P. sometimes called the “imagination errow”) to assemble components of the problem solution from memories, resulting in an imagined, or, if you like, a hypothetical solution which is perceived (ultimately) by the Principle we started with, and accompanied by a reduction in the original error–all that would be a “control loop existing wholly within the human being.” OK?

OK, I see how you think about it. The input perception is generated internally (I guess in your brain or mind) and disturbs your reference perception for that principle. Say you have established a principle of losing weight this month. You somehow get an idea of getting a “blizzard” from Dairy Queen. Something goes on internally that I guess PCT still calls behavior with no action on the environment if you decide not go to the DQ.

<OK, although there seems to be some research suggesting that higher primates also possess some kind of rudimentary self system.>

No surprise here. You respond as if I said that only humans have a self system, which is not in my statement. I do claim that human’s possess a unique self and self-control system that is different and higher than discovered in all other life forms. Much research suggests that is true, no?

<Sure, send me a snailmail address and I will send you the “self” paper and also my chapter , “Involuntary learning of Voluntary Action,” from Wayne Hershberger’s book _Volitional Action_that might also hold some interest for you with your project.>

Thanks, Dick. I’ll be thrilled to read your ideas. Address:

Kenneth J. Kitzke

224 Abbe Place

Shady Crest

Delmont, PA 15626

<Thank you and Merry Christmas to you.

Thanks for your intention. As it turns out, I stopped celebrating Christmas a decade ago. Must be some kind of “reorganization.” :sunglasses:

Kenny

USTA Senior Doubles Team Tennis Guy

[From Dick Robertson,2002.12.25.1355CST

Kenneth Kitzke Value Creation Systems wrote:

[From Kenny Kitzke
(2002.12.25)]
<Dick Robertson,2002.12.24.1601CST>

<Do you mean that there is only
one correct explanation–which hasn’t been discovered yet–>

I “suspect” there is only one correct
explanation for how a human mind or brain actually works. I don’t
think it is discovered yet, do you?

It depends on what you mean. I do think that it’s pretty well established
that behavior is the control of perception, despite the fact that a majority
(?) of people don’t seem to have that view. (Maybe it isn’t a majority,
just a majority of “educated” people who still labor in a Cartesian conception
of how the mind works.) There are, of course, many details about
the actual wiring of the brain, etc., that remain to be discovered, but
I surely will be astounded if those discoveries lead to a view that behavior
does not work by controlling perception.

What there are are
lots of theories of how it might work, at least under certain conditions.
You offered a possibility. Bill Powers certainly has. In fact,
there are thousands of people who have expressed possible explanations.
<or are you implying that you know
the right answer, but you have to be asked before you give it?>

I am so far from thinking or implying
that I have the right answer that I can’t imagine why that would even come
to your mind?

I try to think of all logical possibilities when attempting to interpret
a message that seems to me to have alternative meanings.

I have some theories
too and described a few at CSG Conferences in presentations and papers.
I am not into publishing in scientific journals however, or writing books.
So, it seems that you take your theories much more seriously than I do?
And, that is fine. It is more a hobby with me.
Now, PCT seems to explain pretty well
what is going on when we are playing tennis. That is in movement,
strokes and even playing according to some rules.

I like the idea too that we do that
for a higher level purpose(s), perhaps for principles we hold dear or concepts
we live by.

But, as we move into HPCT and the why’s
and how’s of all that in human beings, I think we get more and more speculative,
even inventing a mysterious “reorganization system” (separate from the
control system loops used for behavior) to explain what HPCT cannot.

Oh, I agree. It’s still pretty much an open territory.

This upper level
stuff is fascinating and of more interest to me than making models or trying
to explain economics with a control theory model. That’s why it’s nice
to have a group with different interests and knowledge bases.
Sure.
Kenny said:

However,
I don’t see PCT explaining much about any control loops existing totally
within the human being. Do you?
<Certainly.
When I experience some sort of problem, or, to put it in PCT terms, an
error occurs in (let’s say) some Principle level system, which then leads
to activating (i.e. turning up the gain) on some “problem solving” Program
under its control–and that, in turn, results in using (what Bill P. sometimes
called the “imagination errow”) to assemble components of the problem solution
from memories, resulting in an imagined, or, if you like, a hypothetical
solution which is perceived (ultimately) by the Principle we started with,
and accompanied by a reduction in the original error–all that would be
a “control loop existing wholly within the human being.” OK? >
OK, I see how
you think about it. The input perception is generated internally
(I guess in your brain or mind) and disturbs your reference perception
for that principle. Say you have established a principle of losing
weight this month. You somehow get an idea of getting a “blizzard”
from Dairy Queen. Something goes on internally that I guess PCT still
calls behavior with no action on the environment if you decide not go to
the DQ.

What is the DQ?

Speculatively,
this is where the self and self control comes into play in our unique human
species–different and higher than all other life forms.
<OK, although
there seems to be some research suggesting that higher primates also possess
some kind of rudimentary self system.>
No surprise here.
You respond as if I said that only humans have a self system, which is
not in my statement. I do claim that human’s possess a unique self
and self-control system that is different and higher than discovered in
all other life forms. Much research suggests that is true, no?

Right.

<Sure, send
me a snailmail address and I will send you the “self” paper and also my
chapter , “Involuntary learning of Voluntary Action,” from Wayne Hershberger’s
book _Volitional Action_that might also hold some interest for you
with your project.>
Thanks, Dick.
I’ll be thrilled to read your ideas. Address:

On the way.

Best,
Dick R.
<Thank you
and Merry Christmas to you.

Thanks for your
intention. As it turns out, I stopped celebrating Christmas a decade
ago. Must be some kind of “reorganization.” :sunglasses:

You are full of surprises, Kenny.

[From Kenny Kitzke (2002.12.25.1630 EST)]

<Dick Robertson,2002.12.25.1355CST>

<What is the DQ?>

Sorry, I thought the abbreviation would be obvious from the Dairy Queen above. I thought you had DQ’s in Chicago land. It is an ice cream store, like a Sonic.

<You are full of surprises, Kenny.>

As a PCTer, you should be more aware than most that we are autonomous and how difficult it is to put people into a box based on a few things we observe or imagine about another person and what they do/say. Everyone does it though to some extent.

My perception is that you wish people a Merry Christmas without meaning a shared remembrance and celebration of the birth of the Savior, the Son of God. Are you going to surprise me?

Anyway, I will be looking in the mailbox. We have had over 2 inches of snow and supposedly another couple coming. No problem, I have a plow on my garden tractor and actually enjoy the task. Patsy calls me Plowman as she shakes her head when I come in all wet and freezing.

Hi to your wife, BTW. I mentioned the Conference in LA to Patsy and our tennis challenge. It did not appear to be a reference perception from her quizzical look. Hopefully, we can get Rick to play as a fourth. His son is a tennis instructor I think!

Best regards and Happy New Year!

Kenny