Value (was Promulgating PCT)

[Martin_Taylor2]

Re: Value (was Promulgating
PCT)
[Martin Taylor 2004.11.18.16.00]

[From Rick Marken
(2004.11.27.1436)]

Marc
Abrams (2004.11.27.1426)

You
want to talk economics? Lets see how ‘interested’ you are in talking
about what I’m interested in. Great, how do you see PCT addressing
the concept of ‘value’?

With the reference signal. Perceptions
that match reference signals appear to be “valued”. People
act (by paying money, for example) to produce valued perceptions (the
ones that match reference signals) and not others (the one’s that
don’t match reference signals).

This isn’t wrong, to me, but doesn’t seem right, either. I look
at it as a way station on the route to a PCT view of
“value”.

Maybe it’s a question of interpreting the words, but to me
“value” seems to refer to situations in which there is a
comparison, or a conflict.

If I have $1 and I have a desire for both X and Y, each of which
I can get with that $1, I choose X, Y, or neither. The choice I make
determines whether I value X, Y, or $1 more highly. It’s a conflict
because whatever control system would bring its perceptual signal
nearer its reference value by the acquisition of X would deny the one
that would benefit from Y that opportunity, and would increase the
error in whatever control system would have its error increased by the
loss of $1. The conflicted control systems aren’t controlling the
“same” perception, but they are trying to control three
degrees of freedom with only one degree or freedom for the disposition
of the $1.

I can’t see the notion of “value” arising separately
from the conflict situation.

Obviously, what Rick says must be there, but it’s a necessary
condition, not sufficient to describe, let alone define, the notion of
“value”.

I have a more detailed message on this on the ECACS Forum. The
message is at http://www.ecacs.net/cgi-bin/discus/show.cgi?tpc=192&post=156#POST156. “Price” is a different kettle of
fish. There’s a separate ECACS thread on determining a price index
http://www.ecacs.net/discus/messages/192/243.html?1097588631.

Martin

[Bozo_the_Clown]

From [Marc Abrams (2004.11.28.2337)

In a message dated 11/28/2004 4:34:12 PM Eastern Standard Time, mmt-csg@ROGERS.COM writes:

···

[Martin Taylor 2004.11.18.16.00]

[From Rick Marken (2004.11.27.1436)]
With the reference signal. Perceptions that match reference >>signals appear to be “valued”. People act (by paying money, for >>example) to produce valued perceptions (the ones that match >>reference signals) and not others (the one’s that don’t match >>reference signals).

This isn’t wrong, to me, but doesn’t seem right, either. I look at it as a way >station on the route to a PCT view of “value.”

I agree.

Maybe it’s a question of interpreting the words, but to me “value” seems to refer >to situations in which there is a comparison, or a conflict.

I think like Rick’s definition, this is true and another part of the answer. I think there might be other aspects involved.

First, what does it mean to have value?

To me, that means we might either want it, or need it, regardless of cost. If we ‘value’ something we would like to have it and if we have it we will protect it. To the degree we do either will depend, I believe on how ‘important’ it is to us.

It is something we feel is important to us because we have learned from experience that this has been able to either help us reduce error or experience pleasure.

I think it is this feeling of ‘importance’ that places a ‘value’ on something and NOT the ‘cost’ or ‘price.’

Cost is the price someone else is asking someone else to pay for something that person is offering, and ‘price’ is what you are willing to ‘pay’ for something you want. ‘Pay’ in this definition is a great deal more than just money.

Now we must deal with reference levels that conflict somethines. How we come to those reference levels become paramount. Can we say with any authority that we can construct a reference level with the current PCT model?

I can’t, because I think reference levels are constructed very much differently then Bill does. I will not get into this until Bill gives me his blessing to do so on this list. I will not in any way try to hinder his effort to push his ideas.

If he feels I present a threat I will back off. I am not a person of nuance. I asked him a direct question. As a person I expect a direct answer back.

I can’t see the notion of “value” arising separately from the conflict situation.

Do you still feel this way?

Marc

[Richard_Marken2]

[From Rick Marken (2004.11.18.0840)]

Martin Taylor (2004.11.18.16.00) --

to me "value" seems to refer to situations in which there is
a comparison, or a conflict.

If I have $1 and I have a desire for both X and Y, each of which I can get
with that $1, I choose X, Y, or neither. The choice I make determines whether
I value X, Y, or $1 more highly.

But without the conflict you still value X and Y to some extent. It seems to
me that the conflict, while it might reveal what you value most, is not
essential to understanding what it is to value things (perceptions). If X
and Y are perceptions on the same perceptual dimension (say, two different
laptop computers) then I would say that their value is measured by how close
each is to the reference for that perceptual variable (the reference for the
kind of laptop you want). If X and Y perceptions on completely different
perceptual dimensions entirely (a laptop and a crate of apples, say) then
their relative value depends on how close each is to the reference for the
relevant perceptual dimension. Conflict is irrelevant to defining "value",
it seem to me.

The conflicted control systems aren't controlling the "same" perception

I would argue that they are controlling the same perceptual variable: a
relationship that is either in the state "purchased X" or "purchased Y". You
can't produce both states of this perception simultaneously because of the
constraints (the cost of X and Y and the amount of money you have) that you
assume.

Obviously, what Rick says must be there, but it's a necessary condition, not
sufficient to describe, let alone define, the notion of "value".

I think we just have a definitional disagreement. For you, "value" refers
to situations in which there is comparison or conflict. For me, value refers
only to what I want to experience. I value certain perceptions -- such as
honesty, integrity, humility, liberality, sunny days, Glenn Gould playing
Bach, etc etc -- in and of themselves, not because I am in conflict about
getting these perceptions rather than others. The reference signal seems to
correspond exactly to what I mean by "value". What I value seems to
correspond rather nicely to the PCT concept of the reference state for a
perceptual variable.

Regards

Rick

···

--
Richard S. Marken
MindReadings.com
Home: 310 474 0313
Cell: 310 729 1400

--------------------

This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and
may contain privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use,
disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended
recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all copies
of the original message.