the coercion thread

[Bill_Powers1]

[from Mary Powers (980812)]

Hello, everybody. Bill has signed off but I haven't.

I have not said anything about the coercion thread because it has been
overwhelming. Why add to this blather? However, now I have a few comments
on things people have said recently, in the coercion thread but about other
stuff.
So:

Bruce N (980810.2348 EDT)

You say: "But struggling looks mighty like (pardon me, Mary) reorganizing,
it looks like trying something different, and then something else different,
and so on in quick succession."

Exactly my point. You are calling the use of a succession of different
actions "reorganization". What is going on is simply that the struggler is
rapidly resetting lower level reference signals in order to move this way
and that. Plain vanilla varying of actions in the effort to achieve the
desired perception of getting away. This is not reorganization, it is a
living control system at work.

Animals of some species will struggle a bit, and then go limp - play dead.
This isn't reorganization either. It is setting lower level reference
signals for the muscles to relax. The intention is the same as for the
assorted tensing and relaxing of the muscles characterized by the observer
as "struggling". But the actions are simply varying - being varied by
resetting reference signals - in the attempt to control perception. As I
just said. As Bill has been talking about for 40+ years.

                * * *

Marc Abrams (980811.1325)

I'm not sure what you are getting at with "Can you please tell me where in
your body the comparator lies. Can you tell me what the input function
looks like? Aren't these theoretical constructs? If not, what are they?
Physical realities?"

Yes.

The whole point of PCT is not that living systems aren't LIKE control
systems, they ARE control systems. I think it has been amply demonstrated
that what living systems do is control. There is no doubt about the
phenomenon of control. Once that is settled, the question arises: how is it
(control) done? Answer: the only way known is by means of the arrangement
described by control theory, with input, reference, comparator, and output
functions connected in the appropriate way.

WTP's modest investigations into neuroanatomy have revealed (to his
satisfaction, and his criteria for being satisfied are stiff ones)
structures and connections which meet the requirements for being components
of control systems. No, you are not going to find a neat little box in th
spinal cord labelled "comparator". You are going to find a messy piece of
living tissue (actually millions of them) that FUNCTIONS as a comparator -
in fact you may find that one tiny glob combines more than one function -
comparator and output, for instance. There is evidence that this is how the
nervous system is organized, and NO evidence that it is NOT organized this
way. Unfortunately, the pros in the field, not knowing control theory, look
at the various connections, label them in ways that do not reflect CT
concepts, and say, essentially, "gee, I wonder what all these connections do."

Admittedly, we in PCT do not know all we should about the wiring of the
nervous system, but the spinal cord evidence is pretty clear and it doesn't
seem overreaching to presume that it's control all the way up, since
controlling is what we do at more levels than spinal reflexes.

What did you think this was all about? Metaphors?

                * * * *

And that brings me back to Bruce Nevin, this time his 980811.1653 EDT rerun
of 980806.1715 EDT.

The issue is what your diagrams are. They appear to be conceptual diagrams.
They are not working models, or so I am told by someone whose opinion I respect.

One of the ways in which PCT is unlike the behavioral and social "sciences"
is that when a diagram is presented, it is supposed to be a diagram of
something that will work. In principle, it should be possible to program
what is going on. It should, in principle, be buildable. It is worth
keeping in mind that when WTP draws a diagram, he does so as a person who
has, throughout his career, used drawing a diagram as a first step towards
building a working device. This is not the case with your pictures.

Mary P.

[Marc_Abrams5]

From [ Marc Abrams (980812.1621)

Hi Mary, Glad your still on CSG.

[from Mary Powers (980812)]

Marc Abrams (980811.1325)

I'm not sure what you are getting at with "Can you please tell me

where in

your body the comparator lies. Can you tell me what the input

function

looks like? Aren't these theoretical constructs? If not, what are

they?

Physical realities?"

Yes.

The whole point of PCT is not that living systems aren't LIKE control
systems, they ARE control systems. I think it has been amply
demonstrated that what living systems do is control. There is no

doubt >about the phenomenon of control. Once that is settled, the
question >arises: how is it (control) done? Answer: the only way
known is by means >of the arrangement described by control theory,
with input, reference, >comparator, and output functions connected in
the appropriate way.

No disagreement.

What did you think this was all about? Metaphors?

No. "Functions" Not physical objects. My point was simply this; do
you dispute the existence of the atom because you haven't been able to
validate the physical existence of it. My statement referred to our
ability to gather "data" from these _specific_ functions to plug into
a model of PCT.

The use of mathematics _is_ the use of metaphor. So by logical
extension a mathematical model _is_ a metaphor for the "real" control
process. Am I mistaken in this belief?

Marc

[bnhpct]

[Bruce Nevin (980812.1441)]

Mary Powers (980812)]

What is going on is simply that the struggler is
rapidly resetting lower level reference signals in order to move this way
and that. Plain vanilla varying of actions in the effort to achieve the
desired perception of getting away.

This has been unclear in discussion of choice etc. as well. Varying the
action of a given effector is obvious. Varying from one effector to another
is not so obvious. Maybe the same outputs that are seen as "struggling"
would be seen as running if the animal were on its four feet (for example)
and not held back. Thanks for setting me straight.

Animals of some species will struggle a bit, and then go limp - play dead.
This isn't reorganization either. It is setting lower level reference
signals for the muscles to relax. The intention is the same as for the
assorted tensing and relaxing of the muscles characterized by the observer
as "struggling".

Yes. As I mentioned, some people who have been mauled by big cats reported
a strange feeling of lethargy. In the 19th century this was attributed to
the "animal magnetism" of the cats, something Mr. Mesmer was also thought
to be endowed with. Speculation: "playing possom" works with a hunter
animal that doesn't truck with carrion.

The issue is what your diagrams are. They appear to be conceptual diagrams.
They are not working models, or so I am told by someone whose opinion I

respect.

I said they were inadequate first sketches, and asked for help fleshing
them out properly. The second level relating the pairs of first-level loops
is obviously just hand-waving, and I said as much. I also said that these
diagrams were abbreviated, leaving out everything except the reference
signal, the controlled variable, and the closedness of the loop. The
missing detail can easily be filled in. There's a reason for the
abbreviation.

Remember how they came about. Rick claimed that his spreadsheet showed
everything that we needed to know about coercion. I wanted to extend the
spreadsheet to show how other varieties of coercion work. These sketches
were my first steps in that direction. For reasons that I think you
remember I could not then seriously carry it further. In Vancouver, I
showed the sketches to several people whose opinion you respect. One of
them even added another type to the set, as he probably remembers if you
ask him, the case where the victim is imagining the coercer and the threat
(or offer). There seemed to be no question that these diagrams were useful
for clarifying what we have been talking about. There seemed to be no
confusion about what they represented, even as abbreviated as are.

One of the ways in which PCT is unlike the behavioral and social "sciences"
is that when a diagram is presented, it is supposed to be a diagram of
something that will work. In principle, it should be possible to program
what is going on. It should, in principle, be buildable. It is worth
keeping in mind that when WTP draws a diagram, he does so as a person who
has, throughout his career, used drawing a diagram as a first step towards
building a working device. This is not the case with your pictures.

I tried giving a more detailed spec to Rick, at his request. Maybe he's
working on a more adequate model of coercion. If not, then I'll get to it
when I am able to. I CANNOT NOW. Cut me some slack, Mary. The diagrams are
not BS. Sketchy and incomplete though they may be (and avowedly so), they
ARE a first step toward implementing something that will work. Their main
purpose was to show that more is required than Rick's pair of single loops
with no hierarchy, and to give some idea of what more is required. In
Vancouver they served that purpose. I hoped they would on line as well.
Completing them as they should be and actually implementing models from
them is yet to come.

  Bruce Nevin