The intentions formerly known as goals

[Richard_Marken2]

[From Rick Marken (2003.05.24.1900)]

Bill Powers (2003.05.24.1915 MDT)--

The simple concept of goal is reasonably close to the idea of a reference
signal, if we remember that we're talking about a set of reference signals.

I'd say "If we remember that we _may_ be talking about a set of reference
signals", which is certainly a good point. But we don't need to change the
meaning of "goal" to do that. We can just say what you said -- when we talk
about goals remember that we may be talking about a set of reference signals".

If I had to stick to the definition of goal that you suggested in your earlier
post I would have to avoid saying that a fielder's goal is to keep vertical
optical angle increasing at a constant rate because it would suggest that this
is only what the fielder imagines to be what he intends.

I think you made a very good point about the difference between what people
imagine their goals to be and what those goals actually are (in terms of the
perceptions that are actually specified by their reference signals) . The fact
that you made this point shows that we can talk about these things in normal
English. We can always use words that refer to components of the model (as you
did in your post), like reference signal and perceptual variable, when we want
to make specific points.

Best regards

Rick

···

--
Richard S. Marken
MindReadings.com
marken@mindreadings.com
310 474-0313

[Richard_Marken2]

[From Rick Marken (2003.05.24.2115)]

Bill Powers (2003.05.24.1915 MDT)--

The other terms we use bring in ideas in addition to the central goal we're
talking about -- how much we want to achieve it, what degree of success we
anticipate, what degree of control we think we have over the outcome, how
much effort we are willing to expend to get there, and so forth...Since we're
talking on the
experiential, informal side of the line, the translation of these different
expressions into PCT will clearly involve expanding them into a lot of
detail that the words only allude to (if we can).

Of course. That's what discussion on CSGNet is largely about, it seems to me.
Showing what informal descriptions of behavior mean in terms of model. We're
done this with things like "importance" (gain in the model), "expectation"
(imagined state of controlled variable) and so on. I suppose it might be nice
to have a glossary showing what words like "aspirations", "wishes", and
"desires" and so on might mean in terms of the PCT model. If that's what you're
getting at I suppose that might be useful. What seems wrong to me is the idea
that some better understanding of behavior will come from developing a set of
correct or even standard definitions of informal terms like "aspirations",
"wishes", and "desires". I think you make it clear above that the job is not
to try to find the right definitions of these informal expressions but, rather,
to try to make sense of them in terms of the PCT model (if we can). And I
agree.

Best

Rick

···

--
Richard S. Marken
MindReadings.com
marken@mindreadings.com
310 474-0313

[Richard_Marken2]

[From Rick Marken (2003.05.24.2120)]

Marc Abrams (2003.05.24.2235) --

Rick Marken (2003.05.23.1645)--

> I'm sure I'll get used to it. But it seems like there already are a number
> of other words that point to what you now want to call "goals":
"aspirations"
> and "wishes", come to mind. And what will we call the intentions formerly
> known as goals? Prince?

If those "intentions" concern _a_ single control system, we already have a
nice name, "Reference Condition".

I would say "if they concern a single perceptual variable". But I agree:
reference condition.

Aspirations, wishes, desires, etc. need some work. Argyris might help us
out here.

How could Argyris help? He doesn't know PCT, does he? I bet you could do it
on your own. What do you think aspirations, wishes and desires refer to in
terms of the PCT model?

Best regards

Rick

···

--
Richard S. Marken
MindReadings.com
marken@mindreadings.com
310 474-0313

[Bruce_Gregory4]

[From Bruce Gregory 92003.0525.0721)]

Rick Marken (2003.05.24.1900)

If I had to stick to the definition of goal that you suggested in your earlier
post I would have to avoid saying that a fielder's goal is to keep vertical
optical angle increasing at a constant rate because it would suggest that this
is only what the fielder imagines to be what he intends.

I doubt the fielder imagines this at all. The fielder's goal is to catch
the ball. The modeler's goal is to discover the perceptual variables
that the fielder controls in order to achieve his goal. Modeler's
occasionally talk as if their goals ought to make sense to 'real'
people. For example, by saying to a fielder, "Your goal is to keep
vertical optical angle increasing at a constant rate."

···

--
Bruce Gregory lives with the poet and painter Gray Jacobik in the future
Canadian Province of New England.

www.joincanadanow.org

[Bruce_Gregory4]

[From Bruce Gregory (2003.0525.0738)]

Rick Marken (2003.05.24.2120)

How could Argyris help? He doesn't know PCT, does he? I bet you could do it
on your own. What do you think aspirations, wishes and desires refer to in
terms of the PCT model?

I know little about Argyris. I understand that he has devoted some time
to confronting the difficulties people have translating higher level
goals into reference levels for higher level control systems. This is
topic of great importance to some people and one that HPCT has had
relatively little to say about (other than the fact that it takes
reorganization in many cases). Difficult though it may be to believe,
others may have something useful to say.

···

--
Bruce Gregory lives with the poet and painter Gray Jacobik in the future
Canadian Province of New England.

www.joincanadanow.org

[Bill_Powers]

[From Bill Powers (2003.05.25.0841 MDT)]

Rick Marken (2003.05.24.1900)--
>If I had to stick to the definition of goal that you suggested in your
earlier
>post I would have to avoid saying that a fielder's goal is to keep vertical
>optical angle increasing at a constant rate because it would suggest that
this
>is only what the fielder imagines to be what he intends.

Are you suggesting that the fielder can know the states of his own
reference signals without first using the imagination connection to get
them into perceptual channels? My proposals are based on a strict
assumption that we can experience ONLY perceptual signals. Anything else
that is to be experienced must first, somehow, give rise to perceptual
signals; otherwise we won't know about it, just as we don't know about the
signals traveling down the spinal cord toward the muscles if they never get
there.

I think you made a very good point about the difference between what people
imagine their goals to be and what those goals actually are (in terms of the
perceptions that are actually specified by their reference signals) . The fact
that you made this point shows that we can talk about these things in normal
English. We can always use words that refer to components of the model (as you
did in your post), like reference signal and perceptual variable, when we want
to make specific points.

If we want our "normal english" conversations to mean as much as the more
technical ones, we need to agree on translations. In your "normal english"
sentence, you use the phrase "perceptions that are actually specified by
their reference signals," which is not a normal english phrase. You can't
say that without using the technical vocabulary.

Best,

Bill P.

[Bill_Powers]

[From Bill Powers (2003.05.25.0849 MDT)]

Rick Marken (2003.05.24.2115)--

Of course. That's what discussion on CSGNet is largely about, it seems to me.
Showing what informal descriptions of behavior mean in terms of model. We're
done this with things like "importance" (gain in the model), "expectation"
(imagined state of controlled variable) and so on. I suppose it might be nice
to have a glossary showing what words like "aspirations", "wishes", and
"desires" and so on might mean in terms of the PCT model. If that's what
you're
getting at I suppose that might be useful.

Yes, that's what the conversation has been about.

What seems wrong to me is the idea
that some better understanding of behavior will come from developing a set of
correct or even standard definitions of informal terms like "aspirations",
"wishes", and "desires". I think you make it clear above that the job is not
to try to find the right definitions of these informal expressions but,
rather,
to try to make sense of them in terms of the PCT model (if we can). And I
agree.

The purpose of the lexicon is not to improve the model, but to improve the
understanding of the model that people without the technical vocabulary can
attain. The lexicon forms the link between the terms of ordinary language
in which people normally think to the technical terms we would like them to
understand.

Best,

Bill P.

[Bill_Powers]

[From Bill Powers (2003.05.25.0855 MDT)(]

Bruce Gregory 92003.0525.0721)--

Rick Marken (2003.05.24.1900)

If I had to stick to the definition of goal that you suggested in your
earlier
post I would have to avoid saying that a fielder's goal is to keep vertical
optical angle increasing at a constant rate because it would suggest that
this
is only what the fielder imagines to be what he intends.

I doubt the fielder imagines this at all. The fielder's goal is to catch
the ball. The modeler's goal is to discover the perceptual variables
that the fielder controls in order to achieve his goal. Modeler's
occasionally talk as if their goals ought to make sense to 'real'
people. For example, by saying to a fielder, "Your goal is to keep
vertical optical angle increasing at a constant rate."

There's confusion here between "how the fielder works" and "how the fielder
thinks he works." Normally the fielder just moves to catch the ball while
keeping an eye on second base to see if the runner has gone too far from
the bag to get back. The fielder isn't thinking, "Gosh, how am I doing all
these things?" If he stopped to introspect, he'd probably drop the ball.

Mary recently found my old reprint of Chapman's original baseball-catching
article. I remember trying it out immediately, because I had no idea that
Chapman's description could possibly fit how we catch a ball. But it did,
perfectly. In fact, knowing that it did made catching balls a lot easier --
I could stop doing other things that I thought were helping, like trying to
predict where the ball would land. Don't ask for details, I don't remember
after all these years. The point is that I had in fact been using control
of vertical angle to catch a ball and never realized it.

To know the meaning of saying that my intent was to keep the vertical angle
constant I had to imagining the vertical angle that I wanted to keep
constant, and to imagine what it would look like if I did keep it constant.
That's the imagined intention or reference signal (as opposed to a verbal
description of it, which is an entirely different kind of perception and
useless for catching baseballs).

Best,

Bill P.

[Richard_Marken2]

[From Rick Marken (2003.05.25.0950)]

Bruce Gregory 92003.0525.0721)

Rick Marken (2003.05.24.1900)

> If I had to stick to the definition of goal that you suggested in your earlier
> post I would have to avoid saying that a fielder's goal is to keep vertical
> optical angle increasing at a constant rate because it would suggest that this
> is only what the fielder imagines to be what he intends.

I doubt the fielder imagines this at all.

I doubt it too. I was just saying that I would still be comfortable calling the
reference in my model a goal. I doubt that doing so would confuse anyone who
understood the model. It hasn't so far.

I think it's fine to point out that the everyday use of the word "goal" often
corresponds to what in PCT would be the imagined state of at set of perceptual
variables that may or may not not correspond to any actual reference states for
perceptions controlled by a person. But that doesn't make the word "goal" any less
useful as a description of the functional role of a reference signal in the model.
At least not from my perspective.

Best

Rick

···

--
Richard S. Marken
MindReadings.com
marken@mindreadings.com
310 474-0313

[Richard_Marken2]

[From Rick Marken (2003.05.25.1010)]

Bruce Gregory (2003.0525.0738)--

Rick Marken (2003.05.24.2120)

> How could Argyris help?

I know little about Argyris. I understand that he has devoted some time
to confronting the difficulties people have translating higher level
goals into reference levels for higher level control systems. This is
topic of great importance to some people and one that HPCT has had
relatively little to say about

I was asking how Argyris could help in the process of understanding everyday
terms, like "aspiration" and "desire", in terms of the PCT model. I doubt that
Argyris or anyone who doesn't understand the PCT model in some detail could help
in this project.

I don't know what "confronting the difficulties people have translating higher
level goals into reference levels" means but it has certainly never been a topic
of any importance to me. I'm more interested in 1) what types of perceptual
variables do people control and 2) what is the relationship between perceptual
variables of different types (does it, for example, even make sense to think of
some perceptual variables as being "higher level" relative to others; my
"Hierarchy of perception" demo suggests that it does).

Difficult though it may be to believe, others may have something useful to say.

I know that others (I presume you mean others besides myself) have something
useful to contribute to PCT. So far I haven't heard anything that makes me think
Argyris is one of them. But I'd be thrilled if he really did have something useful
for PCT.

Best regards

Rick

···

--
Richard S. Marken
MindReadings.com
marken@mindreadings.com
310 474-0313

[Bruce_Gregory4]

[From Bruce Gregory (2003.0525.1319)]

Rick Marken (2003.05.25.0950)

I think it's fine to point out that the everyday use of the word "goal" often
corresponds to what in PCT would be the imagined state of at set of perceptual
variables that may or may not not correspond to any actual reference states for
perceptions controlled by a person. But that doesn't make the word "goal" any less
useful as a description of the functional role of a reference signal in the model.
At least not from my perspective.

I started this exchange because I was surprised to learn that you and
Bill get pleasure from establishing goals that, in terms of the model,
must produce very large errors and hence very large attempts to correct
these errors (if there is significant loop gain). I don't do these
things myself, but that doesn't mean that you don't. It may simply be
that I need to control more effectively than you do. When I imagine some
outcome that I intend to achieve, I establish a plan for realizing that
outcome and control the perceptions associated with executing that plan
with very little error unless I encounter a major disturbance. Different
strokes for different folks apparently.

···

--
Bruce Gregory lives with the poet and painter Gray Jacobik in the future
Canadian Province of New England.

www.joincanadanow.org

[Richard_Marken2]

[From Rick Marken (2003.05.25.1030)]

Bill Powers (2003.05.25.0841 MDT)--

Rick Marken (2003.05.24.1900)--
>If I had to stick to the definition of goal that you suggested in your earlier

>post I would have to avoid saying that a fielder's goal is to keep vertical
>optical angle increasing at a constant rate because it would suggest that this

>is only what the fielder imagines to be what he intends.

Are you suggesting that the fielder can know the states of his own
reference signals without first using the imagination connection to get
them into perceptual channels?

Not at all. I was just uncomfortable restricting my use of the word "goal" to
describe "imagined reference states from the point of view of the actor". I think
it's fine to note that, in terms of the PCT model, this is probably what people
mean by "goal" but I don't think we need to restrict ourselves to this new, PCT
informed definition. If I said that the fielder model's goal is to keep optical
angle increasing at a constant rate I think you would know what I mean, ie. that r
equals some constant value specifying rate of increase in optical angle. If you
didn't we'd then very quickly get into the technical language and we'd be right on
track.

If we want our "normal english" conversations to mean as much as the more
technical ones, we need to agree on translations. In your "normal english"
sentence, you use the phrase "perceptions that are actually specified by
their reference signals," which is not a normal english phrase. You can't
say that without using the technical vocabulary.

Of course! Apparently you missed the fact that I added "We can always use words
that refer to components of the model...like reference signal and perceptual
variable, when we want to make specific points". You and I have been using normal
English to successfully communicate about this stuff for years. We've never needed
to agree on translations of everyday words, like "goal", into technical
vocabulary. All we need is to have the technical vocabulary available, a
vocabulary that comes naturally from working with and understanding the model.

I do think a lexicon that translates informal descriptions of behavior (goal,
desire, plan, etc) into PCT interpretations would be useful. Very useful. But not
so much to aid conversation as to show that PCT does deal with the phenomena
pointed to (somewhat ambiguously) by these informal terms.

Best

Rick

···

--
Richard S. Marken
MindReadings.com
marken@mindreadings.com
310 474-0313

[Richard_Marken2]

[From Rick Marken (2003.05.25.1050)]

Bill Powers (2003.05.25.0849 MDT)--

The purpose of the lexicon is not to improve the model, but to improve the
understanding of the model that people without the technical vocabulary can
attain. The lexicon forms the link between the terms of ordinary language
in which people normally think to the technical terms we would like them to
understand.

Yes. This would be great. I think this type of lexicon would be a great
contribution to PCT.

Let me take a shot at an example entry on "goal" (pardon some plagiarism from
your earlier posts):

Goal: This idea is reasonably close to the idea of a reference signal. In
informal usage, however, people are probably talking about a set of reference
signals rather than a single reference signal. So a goal like "play racquetball"
refers to the reference states of a set of perceptual variables. The term "goal"
probably refers to this set of perceptions. This set probably contains
perceptions that are not controlled and leaves out others that are controlled
when one carries out the goal in actuality.

Does this look like what you have in mind?

Best

Rick

···

--
Richard S. Marken
MindReadings.com
marken@mindreadings.com
310 474-0313

[Bruce_Gregory4]

[From Bruce Gregory (2003.0525.1353)]

Rick Marken (2003.05.25.1010)

I was asking how Argyris could help in the process of understanding everyday
terms, like "aspiration" and "desire", in terms of the PCT model. I doubt that
Argyris or anyone who doesn't understand the PCT model in some detail could help
in this project.

I know.

I don't know what "confronting the difficulties people have translating higher
level goals into reference levels" means but it has certainly never been a topic
of any importance to me.

How remarkable. If you don't know that the expression means, how can you
be so certain it has never been of importance to you? On the off chance
that someone else on the list is less certain that they should ignore
things that they do not understand, I will explain what I meant. Say you
want to lose weight. How do you go about establishing a program that
will allow you to do this? What lower goals will support this higher
level goal? As the expression goes, a hope is not a plan. The failure of
so many plans to change behavior suggests, to me at least, that there
might be something useful to learn.

I'm more interested in 1) what types of perceptual
variables do people control and 2) what is the relationship between perceptual
variables of different types (does it, for example, even make sense to think of
some perceptual variables as being "higher level" relative to others; my
"Hierarchy of perception" demo suggests that it does).

Yes, we know your interests. I'm surprised you have so little confidence
in a hierarchy of goals. You never strike me as one who lacks confidence.

Difficult though it may be to believe, others may have something useful to say.

I know that others (I presume you mean others besides myself) have something
useful to contribute to PCT. So far I haven't heard anything that makes me think
Argyris is one of them.

No, I'm sure you haven't. The circle that contributes to PCT was never
large to begin with and it seems to be growing smaller every day,
doesn't it?

···

--
Bruce Gregory lives with the poet and painter Gray Jacobik in the future
Canadian Province of New England.

www.joincanadanow.org

[Richard_Marken2]

[From Rick Marken (2003.05.25.1110)]

Bruce Gregory (2003.0525.1319)--

I started this exchange because I was surprised to learn that you and
Bill get pleasure from establishing goals that, in terms of the model,
must produce very large errors and hence very large attempts to correct
these errors (if there is significant loop gain).

Bill already addressed this. Let me try to repeat his explanation.

A "large" error can be quite small in terms of the possible range of the error signal.
"Larger than nominal" might be a better way to describe it. And it's not "error" itself
from which we presumably derive pleasure. According to the model error signals are not
perceived. The pleasure we get is presumably derived from the physiological
consequences of the error. These consequences are perceived as pleasurable because they
are interpreted in the context of a goal we look forward confidently to achieving. The
same error driven physiological consequences would be perceived as unpleasant if
interpreted in the context of a goal that we were not looking forward with confidence
to achieving. The point is that the experience of emotion has both a physiological
component (driven by error) and a cognitive component (associated with the perceived
reason for the error). This is the PCT model of emotion (in a nutshell) as described in
LCS II.

I don't do these things myself, but that doesn't mean that you don't.

That's just silly. Many people would say that they don't control their perceptions
either. Would you take that as evidence that behavior is the control of perception, but
only for people who think they control perceptions?

Best

Rick

···

--
Richard S. Marken
MindReadings.com
marken@mindreadings.com
310 474-0313

[Marc_Abrams1]

from [ Marc Abrams (2003.05.25.1400) ]

[From Rick Marken (2003.05.24.2120)]

> If those "intentions" concern _a_ single control system, we already have

a

> nice name, "Reference Condition".

I would say "if they concern a single perceptual variable". But I agree:
reference condition.

You bring up another interesting question. What is a "single perceptual
variable"? I think we run into the same problem here that we did with
"goal".

How could Argyris help?

He has studied some pretty consistent behaviors in people. One of them is
what he calls their "espoused" theories. These are expalanations and reasons
for doing what we _did_ or might like to do. It turns out that these
espoused theories are very often, what we don't do. I would say that our
aspirations, and desires, might fit into that category. Argyis might be able
to help us by showing us the consistent data that might be used in
formulating a PCT definition. We might help him in defining what espoused
theories actually are.

He doesn't know PCT, does he?

Not that I'm aware of.

I bet you could do it on your own. What do you think aspirations, wishes

and desires refer to in

terms of the PCT model?

Some form and, or type of Imaginings, probably with emotions, and or
feelings tied in.

Marc

[Marc_Abrams1]

from [ Marc Abrams (2003.05.25.1419) ]

[From Bill Powers (2003.05.25.0849 MDT)]

Rick Marken (2003.05.24.2115)--

The purpose of the lexicon is not to improve the model, but to improve the
understanding of the model that people without the technical vocabulary

can

attain. The lexicon forms the link between the terms of ordinary language
in which people normally think to the technical terms we would like them

to

understand.

Well put. This in my view, is the _only_ reason to pursue it.

Marc

[Richard_Marken2]

[From Rick Marken (2003.05.25.1130)]

Bruce Gregory (2003.0525.1353)--

Rick Marken (2003.05.25.1010)--

> I don't know what "confronting the difficulties people have translating higher
> level goals into reference levels" means but it has certainly never been a topic
> of any importance to me.

How remarkable. If you don't know that the expression means, how can you
be so certain it has never been of importance to you?

Because it makes no sense to me. One way to make sense of it is to assume that it's
about translating higher level goals into references (for lower level perceptions).
But this is already a part of the model and there is no "difficulty" there. Another
way to make sense of it is to take it as an observation that people have difficulty
acting to achieve some higher level goals. But PCT already explains this as a result
of conflict. Conflict theory is important to me; confronting the difficulties people
have translating higher level goals into references is not.

On the off chance
that someone else on the list is less certain that they should ignore
things that they do not understand, I will explain what I meant. Say you
want to lose weight. How do you go about establishing a program that
will allow you to do this? What lower goals will support this higher
level goal? As the expression goes, a hope is not a plan. The failure of
so many plans to change behavior suggests, to me at least, that there
might be something useful to learn.

The problems of dieting are a result of conflict. Conflict can't be solved by
selecting good plans. If you want to waste your time trying to understand how people
can program solutions to conflicts, be my guest. I think the PCT MOL is closer to
being on the right track as an approach to conflict resolution.

I'm surprised you have so little confidence
in a hierarchy of goals. You never strike me as one who lacks confidence.

I try to have a scientific attitude. The hierarchy of perceptual control is a
theoretical proposal. I'm relatively confident that it's right. But I have to
approach it with skepticism, if only to do the research needed to give myself more
confidence in it.

The circle that contributes to PCT was never large to begin with
and it seems to be growing smaller every day, doesn't it?

The circle that actually contributes to PCT has, indeed, always been _very_ small.
But I think it's been growing larger, not over days, perhaps, but over the years. Of
course, going from ~3 to ~7 over 20 years may not seem like a big deal, but it is a
trend.

Best

Rick

···

--
Richard S. Marken
MindReadings.com
marken@mindreadings.com
310 474-0313

[Richard_Marken2]

[From Rick Marken (2003.05.25.1150)]

Marc Abrams (2003.05.25.1400)--

What is a "single perceptual variable"? I think we run into the same problem
here that we did with
"goal".

I don't think so. A single perceptual variable is defined in the model as p =
f(v1, v2...vn). That is, it's a scalar signal that is a function of some set of
physical variables, v1, v2...vn) in the external environment.

> How could Argyris help?

He has studied some pretty consistent behaviors in people. One of them is
what he calls their "espoused" theories. These are expalanations and reasons
for doing what we _did_ or might like to do. It turns out that these
espoused theories are very often, what we don't do. I would say that our
aspirations, and desires, might fit into that category. Argyis might be able
to help us by showing us the consistent data that might be used in
formulating a PCT definition. We might help him in defining what espoused
theories actually are.

It sounds like we would be doing all the helping. As with informal terms like
"goal", we will be explaining what terms like "espoused theories" mean in terms
of PCT. It seems like all Argyris is going to provide is more words for us to
explain in terms of PCT.

> I bet you could do it on your own. What do you think aspirations, wishes
> and desires refer to in terms of the PCT model?

Some form and, or type of Imaginings, probably with emotions, and or
feelings tied in.

I bet you can do better than that. Emotions and feelings are not part of the
PCT model, by the way. They are phenomena that are explained by the model.

Best

Rick

···

--
Richard S. Marken
MindReadings.com
marken@mindreadings.com
310 474-0313

[Marc_Abrams1]

from [ Marc Abrams (2003.05.25.1440) ]

[From Rick Marken (2003.05.25.1050)]

Let me take a shot at an example entry on "goal" (pardon some plagiarism

from

your earlier posts):

Goal: This idea is reasonably close to the idea of a reference signal.

In

informal usage, however, people are probably talking about a set of

reference

signals rather than a single reference signal. So a goal like "play

racquetball"

refers to the reference states of a set of perceptual variables. The term

"goal"

probably refers to this set of perceptions. This set probably contains
perceptions that are not controlled and leaves out others that are

controlled

when one carries out the goal in actuality.

Does this look like what you have in mind?

I am assuming this question was intended for Bill. So I apologize for
jumping in here but...;

I like Bill's slightly longer, but much clearer definition. To many
"undefined" words in this definition. Is a "perception" different from a
"perceptual variable"? What does "reasonably close" mean?, etc. Nice try. In
my opinion, clarity must rule over triteness in any lexicon explanation.

Marc