Wanting, Liking; Drive,Desire etc

[From Bruce Abbott (2015.11.18.1940 EST)]

···

From: Warren Mansell [mailto:wmansell@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, November 18, 2015 1:04 AM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: Wanting, Liking; Drive, Desire etc

Hi folks,

I think we all agree that these experiences of pleasure and pain are going to function within a control system, e.g. to control for a zero reference level of pain, as per Rick’s first post.

I think there are two things missing that relate to one another and to Vyv’s question.

  • If these variables are intrinsic (as they seem to drive learning and not need to be learned; fits with all the experimental results), why are they experienced (as qualia) so vividly?

  • how are all of these (and other) intrinsic perceptions related and organised in relation to one another? Bill said a lot about how tj perceptual hierarchy might be organised but very little about how the intrinsic control systems are (innately? anatomically) organised.

Maybe the first question answers the second if we continue with Bill’s view that awareness relates closely to the locus of reorganisation - these feelings might be experienced in order to help rank and prioritise their influence on learning. So for example intensely pleasant emotions drive a sudden peak of reorganisation to converge quickly on a successful organisation of control systems to get that pleasurable experience again.

Comments welcome!

Warren

When Bill began to develop Hierarchical Perceptual Control Theory (HPCT), one of his goals was to envision a hierarchy of control systems that would essentially create itself without any need for detailed genetic specifications. The model for this process came from Ross Ashby’s “homeostat,” a mechanism capable of self-reorganization that would re-establish control over its variables even after its feedback had been reversed from negative to positive. Ashby suggested that something like the homeostat might exist in living systems, beginning with a set of “essential variables.” Bill borrowed this idea for HPCT, renaming “essential variables” to “intrinsic variables” and coining the term “reorganization” to label the undirected process through which control systems would become organized, level by level, beginning with a genetically specified first-level set of controllers. It’s an elegant solution to the problem of how the control hierarchy would emerge during development and how individual systems might continue to be modified as needed when they failed to adequately control.

The entire hierarchy is assumed to exist as the means to maintain adequate control over those intrinsic variables. But this assumption leads to a problem that Bill recognized but was never able to satisfactorily solve. Reorganization, according to the theory, should come into play whenever control over intrinsic variables deteriorates, but because reorganization is envisioned to be an essentially random process, it contains no mechanism to target the specific control systems within the control hierarchy that are causing the problem. Thus we are stuck with the possibility that the wrong parts of the hierarchy will get altered during the reorganization process. For example, with the organism starving because the means used to obtain food for the nutrient control system no longer works, the reorganizing system might randomly change connections within the control systems for keeping one’s balance, thereby worsening control over balance instead of restoring control over food intake.

Bill recognized that there must be a far more targeted method that would make changes specifically within those control systems in which control had been deteriorating. Reorganization would be limited to those systems whose own error signals are persistently high. But this suggestion violates the presumption that reorganization is driven by error in the intrinsic variables.

Nevertheless, if one assumes that reorganization can be targeted, then this raises another problem. How does the reorganizing system “know” what specific systems in the hierarchy are experiencing persistent error, and target only those for reorganization? So far as I am aware, Bill was only able to suggest that conscious attention somehow “directs” reorganization to the appropriate places. This may hint at a possible solution, but it is only a hint. The problem remains unresolved.

During his lifetime Bill constantly reminded us that PCT is a work in progress and strongly encouraged those interested in the theory to subject it to rigorous testing and, if the results demand it, modification in the light of the evidence. The nature of the reorganization process is one of those areas in need of further development.

My own view, for what it’s worth, is that intrinsic or essential variables are not the drivers of the reorganization process. I believe that Bill greatly underestimated the power of the genetically-driven developmental process to innately organize control systems. The organization of brains is just too similar from individual to individual within a species and from species to species to be the product of a random reorganization process. We come into the world already possessing a myriad of control systems, including those that control those physiological variables whose values must be kept within narrow limits if we are to survive. It is more likely, to my mind, that reorganization is involved in the tuning of pre-organized systems such as those operating the skeletal musculature, and in the development of new control systems acting through those preexisting systems. There may in fact be different methods of reorganization for pre-organized systems and those that are learned. In either case I would imagine that reorganization only works on the components of the system whose controlled perception is not being well controlled, based on persistent error in those specific systems.

Comments welcome.

Bruce A.

I love this when you said Bruce;
" reorganization is involved in the tuning of pre-organized systems"

Question is why?

Isn’t always so as to grow, to Evolve?

Can I throw something in here please as I really want to know more on DESIRE within PCT

Here goes;
 Imagine I want to re-invent myself, I want to become a Doctor! (Bear with me here please).
 OK, so I start out with
 1a. A VISION
 2a. I turn this into a concrete written PLAN
 3a. Life is but a game, and games have RULES, so I create RULES to attain his VISION.
 4a. This then leads to a working SYSTEM to manifest this VISION
Â
 But this inturn means I need to feed all this with

1b.

 2b. COMMITMENT
 3b. I’ll need DISCIPLINE to meet this VISION
 4b. It will cultivate HABITS so as to replicate behaviour.
 5b. And cultivate CONFIDENCE. It’s CONFIDENCE that overcomes fear, you need CONFIDENCE.
Â
So ok, see in this 2nd list I’m missing a No. 1b
What has this to do with PCT?
Bruce, you said "We desire experiences that give us pleasure"
So with regard to the VISION (Of becoming a Doctor), the link is DESIRE?
So No. 1b should be DESIRE?
Bruce you also said;
“In my view pleasant and unpleasant are subjective states that are attached, innately in some cases, acquired in others, that may guide the development of systems that serve to control the perceptions associated with these subjective states and establish their reference values”
And Warren said;
“I think we all agree that these experiences of pleasure and pain are going to function within a control system,”

So the main question I need to ask in any model really at the highest level is “What is it I really want? (To DO / BE)”
And this is linked to the seeking of Pleasure and Pain avoidance?

My only hang up is one of two possible words to possibly change with DESIRE (1b) , and that is MEANING, or PURPOSE

Behaviour is purposable, so I attach a MEANING to it. Based on what I’ve just said, maybe now I’ve got this down to 2, either DESIRE or PURPOSE, as MEANING is subjectively attached to 1 or those 2? Then again If DESIRE or PURPOSE NEEDS MEANING, maybe it’s MEANING that should be at 1b?

So to summerise the above.
I start with a VISION to be a Doctor, which inturn tells me to create a PLAN, but I need to feed it COMMITMENT etc etc.
So VISION IS at the top of this hierarchy, but VISION needs DESIRE, MEANING or PURPOSE?
 These 3 words are important, and I don’t know quite how they relate in PCT, the 2 comments above from Warren yourself Bruce acknowledge Pleasure within a control system, so is it DESIRE or MEANING or PURPOSE that sits at the top of this Hirearcy with VISION?
They are all important words that carry a different weight to them.

Any thoughts most welcome.
I know these are subjective, but which one of those 3 words best fits within my scenario and a PCT Model?

Comments most welcome!
Regards
John C

Â

···

On 19 November 2015 at 00:41, Bruce Abbott bbabbott@frontier.com wrote:

[From Bruce Abbott (2015.11.18.1940 EST)]

Â

From: Warren Mansell [mailto:wmansell@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, November 18, 2015 1:04 AM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: Wanting, Liking; Drive, Desire etc

Â

Hi folks,

I think we all agree that these experiences of pleasure and pain are going to function within a control system, e.g. to control for a zero reference level of pain, as per Rick’s first post.

I think there are two things missing that relate to one another and to Vyv’s question.

  • If these variables are intrinsic (as they seem to drive learning and not need to be learned; fits with all the experimental results), why are they experienced (as qualia) so vividly?
  • how are all of these (and other) intrinsic perceptions related and organised in relation to one another? Bill said a lot about how tj perceptual hierarchy might be organised but very little about how the intrinsic control systems are (innately? anatomically) organised.

Maybe the first question answers the second if we continue with Bill’s view that awareness relates closely to the locus of reorganisation  - these feelings might be experienced in order to help rank and prioritise their influence on learning. So for example intensely pleasant emotions drive a sudden peak of reorganisation to converge quickly on a successful organisation of control systems to get that pleasurable experience again.Â

Comments welcome!

Warren

Â

When Bill began to develop Hierarchical Perceptual Control Theory (HPCT), one of his goals was to envision a hierarchy of control systems that would essentially create itself without any need for detailed genetic specifications. The model for this process came from Ross Ashby’s “homeostat,� a mechanism capable of self-reorganization that would re-establish control over its variables even after its feedback had been reversed from negative to positive. Ashby suggested that something like the homeostat might exist in living systems, beginning with a set of “essential variables.� Bill borrowed this idea for HPCT, renaming “essential variables� to “intrinsic variables� and coining the term “reorganization� to label the undirected process through which control systems would become organized, level by level, beginning with a genetically specified first-level set of controllers. It’s an elegant solution to the problem of how the control hierarchy would emerge during development and how individual systems might continue to be modified as needed when they failed to adequately control.

Â

The entire hierarchy is assumed to exist as the means to maintain adequate control over those intrinsic variables. But this assumption leads to a problem that Bill recognized but was never able to satisfactorily solve. Reorganization, according to the theory, should come into play whenever control over intrinsic variables deteriorates, but because reorganization is envisioned to be an essentially random process, it contains no mechanism to target the specific control systems within the control hierarchy that are causing the problem. Thus we are stuck with the possibility that the wrong parts of the hierarchy will get altered during the reorganization process. For example, with the organism starving because the means used to obtain food for the nutrient control system no longer works, the reorganizing system might randomly change connections within the control systems for keeping one’s balance, thereby worsening control over balance instead of restoring control over food intake.Â

Â

Bill recognized that there must be a far more targeted method that would make changes specifically within those control systems in which control had been deteriorating. Reorganization would be limited to those systems whose own error signals are persistently high. But this suggestion violates the presumption that reorganization is driven by error in the intrinsic variables

Â

Nevertheless, if one assumes that reorganization can be targeted, then this raises another problem. How does the reorganizing system “know� what specific systems in the hierarchy are experiencing persistent error, and target only those for reorganization? So far as I am aware, Bill was only able to suggest that conscious attention somehow “directs� reorganization to the appropriate places. This may hint at a possible solution, but it is only a hint. The problem remains unresolved.

Â

During his lifetime Bill constantly reminded us that PCT is a work in progress and strongly encouraged those interested in the theory to subject it to rigorous testing and, if the results demand it, modification in the light of the evidence. The nature of the reorganization process is one of those areas in need of further development.Â

Â

My own view, for what it’s worth, is that intrinsic or essential variables are not the drivers of the reorganization process. I believe that Bill greatly underestimated the power of the genetically-driven developmental process to innately organize control systems. The organization of brains is just too similar from individual to individual within a species and from species to species to be the product of a random reorganization process. We come into the world already possessing a myriad of control systems, including those that control those physiological variables whose values must be kept within narrow limits if we are to survive. It is more likely, to my mind, that reorganization is involved in the tuning of pre-organized systems such as those operating the skeletal musculature, and in the development of new control systems acting through those preexisting systems. There may in fact be different methods of reorganization for pre-organized systems and those that are learned. In either case I would imagine that reorganization only works on the components of the system whose controlled perception is not being well controlled, based on persistent error in those specific systems.

Â

Comments welcome.

Â

Bruce A.

Â

[From Bruce Abbott (2015.11.19.1150 EST)]

···

From: John Caines [mailto:johncaines@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, November 18, 2015 8:58 PM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: Wanting, Liking; Drive,Desire etc

I love this when you said Bruce;
" reorganization is involved in the tuning of pre-organized systems"

Question is why?

Isn’t always so as to grow, to Evolve?

I had in mind the initially poor control that infants have over their limbs. The level-1 systems controlling perceptions of muscle length, tendon force, and joint angles are probably already functioning reasonably well at birth, but perhaps the system gains are too high or too low, leading to over- or under-control. The reorganizing system might adjust these gains to achieve good control. Furthermore, to accomplish something useful, those systems must have their references manipulated in specific ways so that, for example, the infant can smoothly move its hands to its mouth. This requires properly linking the outputs of higher-level systems to those first-order system references and adjusting system gains as necessary. Bill Powers modeled this latter process in his ArmControlReorg simulation (Demo 8-1) in Living Control Systems III. There, systems for controlling joint angles of the wrist, elbow, and shoulder joints have their references randomly connected via sets of weights to higher-level systems that operate the joints to produce coordinated movements. Initially, changing the references of the higher-level systems causes many joints to change angle, even those that should not be involved in the movement. As reorganization proceeds, the weights are altered until each system operates only those joints required for the movement it is supposed to perceive. This looks very much like the way coordinated movement develops in infants.

Can I throw something in here please as I really want to know more on DESIRE within PCT

Here goes;

Imagine I want to re-invent myself, I want to become a Doctor! (Bear with me here please).
OK, so I start out with
1a. A VISION
2a. I turn this into a concrete written PLAN
3a. Life is but a game, and games have RULES, so I create RULES to attain his VISION.
4a. This then leads to a working SYSTEM to manifest this VISION

But this inturn means I need to feed all this with

1b.

2b. COMMITMENT
3b. I’ll need DISCIPLINE to meet this VISION
4b. It will cultivate HABITS so as to replicate behaviour.
5b. And cultivate CONFIDENCE. It’s CONFIDENCE that overcomes fear, you need CONFIDENCE.

So ok, see in this 2nd list I’m missing a No. 1b
What has this to do with PCT?
Bruce, you said "We desire experiences that give us pleasure"
So with regard to the VISION (Of becoming a Doctor), the link is DESIRE?
So No. 1b should be DESIRE?

John, you’ve outlined a set of steps (1a to 4a), followed by a set of terms that would require considerable elaboration before they could be fit into a PCT-based theoretical framework. What do commitment, discipline, and confidence mean in the context of a set of operating control systems? Perhaps you can work that out.

Desire, on the other hand, has a quite specific point of contact with PCT. It’s a specific state of a reference, in this case for a perception of being a doctor. You are not currently a doctor, so there is an error in this system, for which you quite consciously construct a set of subsidiary control systems to establish control over the state of that perception.  It’s a bit like the “house that Jack built�: This is the desire that Jack had. This is the plan that Jack designed to realize the desire that Jack had. These are the rules that Jack developed to carry out the plan that Jack designed to realize the desire that Jack had. (You get the picture.)  It’s like a series of nested Russian dolls.

Clearly these plans and rules do not develop through random reorganization. They are consciously developed by a thinking, reasoning human being.

Bruce you also said;
“In my view pleasant and unpleasant are subjective states that are attached, innately in some cases, acquired in others, that may guide the development of systems that serve to control the perceptions associated with these subjective states and establish their reference values”
And Warren said;
“I think we all agree that these experiences of pleasure and pain are going to function within a control system,”

So the main question I need to ask in any model really at the highest level is “What is it I really want? (To DO / BE)”
And this is linked to the seeking of Pleasure and Pain avoidance?

Well, that last one was my question! I have suggested that there may be occasions in which it is.

My only hang up is one of two possible words to possibly change with DESIRE (1b) , and that is MEANING, or PURPOSE

Behaviour is purposable, so I attach a MEANING to it. Based on what I’ve just said, maybe now I’ve got this down to 2, either DESIRE or PURPOSE, as MEANING is subjectively attached to 1 or those 2? Then again If DESIRE or PURPOSE NEEDS MEANING, maybe it’s MEANING that should be at 1b?

Meaning seems to me more of a perception of the observer than anything inherent in a control system. Purpose is the goal or reference state toward which the control system is organized to produce and thus seems almost to be another term for reference state or goal, although it may suggest a greater likelihood of action than mere desire does.

So to summerise the above.
I start with a VISION to be a Doctor, which inturn tells me to create a PLAN, but I need to feed it COMMITMENT etc etc.
So VISION IS at the top of this hierarchy, but VISION needs DESIRE, MEANING or PURPOSE?
These 3 words are important, and I don’t know quite how they relate in PCT, the 2 comments above from Warren yourself Bruce acknowledge Pleasure within a control system, so is it DESIRE or MEANING or PURPOSE that sits at the top of this Hirearcy with VISION?
They are all important words that carry a different weight to them.

What you describe as a hierarchy seems more a series of steps laid out to attain a reference state (being a doctor) and has no relation that I can see to the hierarchy of perceptual control that Bill Powers developed for HPCT.

Bruce A.

Many thanks for your time to reply Bruce.

DESIRE,  that’s what I needed to know Bruce,

So really it’s a combination of DESIRE /and a VISION (of what you want) that creates, sets the initial reference state?

You say Bruce,

  • What
    you describe as a hierarchy seems more a series of steps laid out to attain a reference state (being a doctor) and has no relation that I can
    see to the hierarchy of perceptual control that Bill Powers developed for HPCT.*

I need to read into HPCT now.

The reason I mentioned the ‘series of steps’ is actually part of a ‘MAP’ a structure of what I consider to be essential in defining the makings of a ‘Super Trader.’ (2 seconds and all will be clear, just something I’ve been looking at for a while).

I’ll share here Bruce an image I’ve created (please, if this can stay on the forum, and not be uploaded to the WWW), here’s the link from my DropBox acc;

https://www.dropbox.com/s/n2zgbafaek509rw/STM-v1.01-FINAL.png?dl=0

It’s a work in progress.

At the most basic level I see a person (To Trade / Be a Super Trader) would evolve from this 4 quadrant model, a matrix, basically the very essence comes from Steven Covey, the term, MIND, BODY, HEART & SPIRIT,

so IMO, a Super Trader (ST) functions optimally within the (STM) the Super Trader Matrix, when all 4 quadrants are working cohesively as one, a connective collective, you are in a FLOW state, functioning optimally.

My interest in PCT is to see how this can integrate within my MATRIX. I’m no academic, but I always am thinking the ‘What If’s’ in my head.

So having very recently come across PCT, and liking a lot about the small amount I have read, I’m just interested how PCT could be framed within my Matrix.

The main point seems that PCT needs a reference, (So from my diagram it’s really from Lower Left Quadrant (VISION, and you’ll also see the word GOALS).

Another reason I asked about DESIRE, is because the GOALS in my diagram I feel is wrong. This should be replaced with DESIRE.

GOALS are a subset of TRADING PLAN.

Your DESIRE or PURPOSE is higher up the chain, thus GOALS shouldn’t be in that spot (Were as DESIRE or PURPOSE can be).

Just to add Bruce, just searching now on Google for HPCT and came across this page;
http://faculty.education.illinois.edu/g-cziko/wm/08.html

and within it there is this image,
http://faculty.education.illinois.edu/g-cziko/wm/wmgifs/F08.1_ECS.GIF

With the word PURPOSE at the top!!!

Why have they chosen PURPOSE and NOT DESIRE? :-)Â (Really they should have used REFERENCE STATE???).

Difficult for PCT to explain or integrate LRQ (SPIRIT quadrant,with words like JOY, and PEACE, how we envision a perfect life to include (Super Traders Life), feelings etc seem to be hard to be integrated within a PCT framework ?

The URQ, (Upper Right Quadrant) HEART is the FEEDBACK LOOP, so as to grow, evolve, (Where ERRORS are Found).
So much I can add, explain about this MATRIX Bruce, but just thought I’d share it now here, as long as it stays within this forum so you can better understand why I was looking into DESIRE more, so as to replace the word GOALS, Although from The Insights of James, Dewey, and Tolman page it could be changed to PURPOSE!!!

Many thanks again for your reply Bruce.

I need to read more on HPCT!

Any Comments regarding my Matrix most welcome

Best Regards Bruce

JC

PS.

I will post my STM image on the WWW one day soon, but I don’t want it out there yet until I have the synopsis to go with it.

···

On 19 November 2015 at 16:51, Bruce Abbott bbabbott@frontier.com wrote:

[From Bruce Abbott (2015.11.19.1150 EST)]

Â

From: John Caines [mailto:johncaines@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, November 18, 2015 8:58 PM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: Wanting, Liking; Drive,Desire etc

Â

I love this when you said Bruce;
" reorganization is involved in the tuning of pre-organized systems"

Question is why?

Isn’t always so as to grow, to Evolve?

I had in mind the initially poor control that infants have over their limbs. The level-1 systems controlling perceptions of muscle length, tendon force, and joint angles are probably already functioning reasonably well at birth, but perhaps the system gains are too high or too low, leading to over- or under-control. The reorganizing system might adjust these gains to achieve good control. Furthermore, to accomplish something useful, those systems must have their references manipulated in specific ways so that, for example, the infant can smoothly move its hands to its mouth. This requires properly linking the outputs of higher-level systems to those first-order system references and adjusting system gains as necessary. Bill Powers modeled this latter process in his ArmControlReorg simulation (Demo 8-1) in Living Control Systems III. There, systems for controlling joint angles of the wrist, elbow, and shoulder joints have their references randomly connected via sets of weights to higher-level systems that operate the joints to produce coordinated movements. Initially, changing the references of the higher-level systems causes many joints to change angle, even those that should not be involved in the movement. As reorganization proceeds, the weights are altered until each system operates only those joints required for the movement it is supposed to perceive. This looks very much like the way coordinated movement develops in infants.

Can I throw something in here please as I really want to know more on DESIRE within PCT

Here goes;

 Imagine I want to re-invent myself, I want to become a Doctor! (Bear with me here please).
 OK, so I start out with
 1a. A VISION
 2a. I turn this into a concrete written PLAN
 3a. Life is but a game, and games have RULES, so I create RULES to attain his VISION.
 4a. This then leads to a working SYSTEM to manifest this VISION
Â
 But this inturn means I need to feed all this with

1b.

 2b. COMMITMENT
 3b. I’ll need DISCIPLINE to meet this VISION
 4b. It will cultivate HABITS so as to replicate behaviour.
 5b. And cultivate CONFIDENCE. It’s CONFIDENCE that overcomes fear, you need CONFIDENCE.
Â
So ok, see in this 2nd list I’m missing a No. 1b
What has this to do with PCT?
Bruce, you said "We desire experiences that give us pleasure"
So with regard to the VISION (Of becoming a Doctor), the link is DESIRE?
So No. 1b should be DESIRE?

Â

John, you’ve outlined a set of steps (1a to 4a), followed by a set of terms that would require considerable elaboration before they could be fit into a PCT-based theoretical framework. What do commitment, discipline, and confidence mean in the context of a set of operating control systems? Perhaps you can work that out.

Â

Desire, on the other hand, has a quite specific point of contact with PCT. It’s a specific state of a reference, in this case for a perception of being a doctor. You are not currently a doctor, so there is an error in this system, for which you quite consciously construct a set of subsidiary control systems to establish control over the state of that perception. It’s a bit like the “house that Jack built�: This is the desire that Jack had. This is the plan that Jack designed to realize the desire that Jack had. These are the rules that Jack developed to carry out the plan that Jack designed to realize the desire that Jack had. (You get the picture.)  It’s like a series of nested Russian dolls.

Â

Clearly these plans and rules do not develop through random reorganization. They are consciously developed by a thinking, reasoning human being.

Bruce you also said;
“In my view pleasant and unpleasant are subjective states that are attached, innately in some cases, acquired in others, that may guide the development of systems that serve to control the perceptions associated with these subjective states and establish their reference values”
And Warren said;
“I think we all agree that these experiences of pleasure and pain are going to function within a control system,”

So the main question I need to ask in any model really at the highest level is “What is it I really want? (To DO / BE)”
And this is linked to the seeking of Pleasure and Pain avoidance?

Â

Well, that last one was my question! I have suggested that there may be occasions in which it is.

My only hang up is one of two possible words to possibly change with DESIRE (1b) , and that is MEANING, or PURPOSE

Behaviour is purposable, so I attach a MEANING to it. Based on what I’ve just said, maybe now I’ve got this down to 2, either DESIRE or PURPOSE, as MEANING is subjectively attached to 1 or those 2? Then again If DESIRE or PURPOSE NEEDS MEANING, maybe it’s MEANING that should be at 1b?

Â

Meaning seems to me more of a perception of the observer than anything inherent in a control system. Purpose is the goal or reference state toward which the control system is organized to produce and thus seems almost to be another term for reference state or goal, although it may suggest a greater likelihood of action than mere desire does.

So to summerise the above.
I start with a VISION to be a Doctor, which inturn tells me to create a PLAN, but I need to feed it COMMITMENT etc etc.
So VISION IS at the top of this hierarchy, but VISION needs DESIRE, MEANING or PURPOSE?
 These 3 words are important, and I don’t know quite how they relate in PCT, the 2 comments above from Warren yourself Bruce acknowledge Pleasure within a control system, so is it DESIRE or MEANING or PURPOSE that sits at the top of this Hirearcy with VISION?
They are all important words that carry a different weight to them.

What you describe as a hierarchy seems more a series of steps laid out to attain a reference state (being a doctor) and has no relation that I can see to the hierarchy of perceptual control that Bill Powers developed for HPCT.

Bruce A.