War

From [ Marc Abrams (2003.03.17.1402) ]

Things are looking pretty bleak. From what I understand, Bush is going on
TV tonight and giving Saddam & his cohorts 72 hours to vacate.

I don't believe he will, and unfortunately, Men are going to lose their
lives in trying to bring this man to justice.

If by some miracle Saddam vacates and proves Bjorn right I will rejoice at
the outcome. If not, there will be no joy in having to go to war.

···

At 08:23 PM 3/16/2003 +0100, you wrote:

[From Bjorn Simonsen (2003,03.16,20:25EST)]

From [ Marc Abrams ( 2003.03.15.0804) ]

>>2. The conflict between USA and France/Germany/Russia/.. are the price of
>>this squeezing.

>Are you suggesting there is a power play under way between the US and those
>European countries? What are the differing reference conditions and
>perceptions for both sides that is causing this anxiety? Economic,
>Political, both or niether?

Yes.
The US reference: USA is a superpower
The US perception: 1441 is not granted

"The world" has experienced the positive effect of the existence of two
superpowers. Today we have an emptiness here.
France/Germany/Russia reference: Behave as an other superpower.
The F/G/R perception: 1441 is not granted.

Two different perceptions and the same CV. We know what it is.

>>3. There will be no offensive against Iraq. There will be a political
>>solution of one kind.

>I hope so. But I'm not real optimistic about this.

>>4. The rest of the world will not believe the US government when they
>>publish that they basically wouldn't attack Iraq.

>Then why do you think #3 above?

Saddam Hussein will leave Iraq (Gaia ?) within 9 days. "Iraq" will ask for a
UN police-group
to secure domestic security. Remember how psychopaths react when they feel
too high strain relative to own security.

>> There will be a new European Common Army

>Why?, Who would you possibly need to, or want to defend yourselves against.
>( the big bad US of A :wink: ) Being a pacifist I am sure this is upsetting to
>you.

I can't imagine a superpower without an army.

bjorn

[From Rick Marken (2003.03.17.0810)]

Marc Abrams (2003.03.17.1402)--

Things are looking pretty bleak. From what I understand, Bush is going on
TV tonight and giving Saddam & his cohorts 72 hours to vacate.

I don't believe he will, and unfortunately, Men are going to lose their
lives in trying to bring this man to justice.

If by some miracle Saddam vacates and proves Bjorn right I will rejoice at
the outcome. If not, there will be no joy in having to go to war.

But do we really "have to" go to war? PCT shows that we only "have to" act to
bring controlled perceptions to reference states and protect those variables from
disturbance. So it is really the existence of our own goals (references) that
ultimately requires that we act in certain ways. If we didn't have the goal of
keeping the cursor on target in attacking task we wouldn't act by move the mouse
in exact opposition to the disturbance wave form. If we didn't have the goal of
seeing Saddam gone by the end of March we would not "have to" go to war. If Bush
didn't have the goal of remaining in office we would not "have to" go to war
because he (like Saddam) could vacate in 48 hrs.

People impose conflicts like this on themselves by adopting goals that make these
conflicts seem "inevitable" from their point of view. Bush and Co. are perfect
examples of people who are looking at behavior through causal rather than control
theory glasses. It appears to them that their actions are caused (required) by
events outside themselves (Saddam, terrorists). I'm not sure that even my "mind
reading" demo could convince them otherwise. The illusion of external causation is
a _very_ compelling illusion, as we all know.

Now that the conflict is inevitable from the perspective of at least one party to
it, I do hope that it is over quickly, with few casualties and that the Iraqi
people are able to put a stable government in place that will be less oppressive
than is the present one.

Best regards

Rick

···

--
Richard S. Marken, Ph.D.
Senior Behavioral Scientist
The RAND Corporation
PO Box 2138
1700 Main Street
Santa Monica, CA 90407-2138
Tel: 310-393-0411 x7971
Fax: 310-451-7018
E-mail: rmarken@rand.org

From [ Marc Abrams (2003.03.17.1219) ]

[From Rick Marken (2003.03.17.0810)]

But do we really "have to" go to war?

No. Saddam and friends could vacate and there would be no war.

PCT shows that we only "have to" act to
bring controlled perceptions to reference states and protect those
variables from
disturbance.

Yes, and HPCT shows that error signals become lower level reference
conditions. Not only on lower levels, but among variables on the same level
Bill made a comment in a post the other day ( I can't recall exactly where,
but I'm sure he'll correct me if I'm wrong :slight_smile: ) that suggested that
Perceptions might turn back into lower level reference conditions. (
similar to what happens with the memory model on pg 221 of B:CP ). Maybe
that's true.

It is and has been my contention all along that Saddam has created huge
errors. By _both_ causing disturbances and by helping to create lower
level reference conditions. The act of war belay's ( got it right this time
Bill :slight_smile: ) our higher level goals of peace and security, but fulfills
intermediate goals of reducing error.

So it is really the existence of our own goals (references) that
ultimately requires that we act in certain ways.

Yes, see my statement right above.

If we didn't have the goal of
keeping the cursor on target in attacking task we wouldn't act by move the
mouse
in exact opposition to the disturbance wave form. If we didn't have the
goal of
seeing Saddam gone by the end of March we would not "have to" go to war.
If Bush
didn't have the goal of remaining in office we would not "have to" go to war
because he (like Saddam) could vacate in 48 hrs.

What exactly does Bushs' ( mister apostrophe police, is this correct? :slight_smile: )
goal of remaining in office have to do with it?

You either refuse to, or don't understand the importance of the
intermediate reference conditions. Disturbances occur only once in the
control process. When the variable goes through the environment. But a
variable is exposed to all kinds of changes through different error paths
through the hierarchy. You can never do just _one_ thing. A change in one
could and probably does affect any number of lower level reference
conditions _without_ necessarily changing the higher level goals.

People impose conflicts like this on themselves by adopting goals that
make these
conflicts seem "inevitable" from their point of view. Bush and Co.

I disagree. I think most people don't "adopt" anything. Not consciously at
least, with regard to attaining higher level goals, These intermediate
reference conditions are responses that reduce error _at the time_ to some
higher level goal that may or may not have anything to do with actually
being able to attain that goal. ( example. I may not take in enough sugar.
That doesn't affect my ability to function until I go into Hypothermia and
all hell breaks loose. Did I set a goal to go into hypothermia? According
to you I would adopt that goal.)

are perfect
examples of people who are looking at behavior through causal rather than
control
theory glasses. It appears to them that their actions are caused
(required) by
events outside themselves (Saddam, terrorists). I'm not sure that even my
"mind
reading" demo could convince them otherwise. The illusion of external
causation is
a _very_ compelling illusion, as we all know.

It's not external causation. It's internal reference condition generation.

Now that the conflict is inevitable from the perspective of at least one
party to
it, I do hope that it is over quickly, with few casualties and that the Iraqi
people are able to put a stable government in place that will be less
oppressive
than is the present one.

Amen.

Marc

···

At 08:10 AM 3/18/2003 -0500, you wrote:

[From Rick Marken (2003.03.18.1250)]

Marc Abrams (2003.03.17.1219)

Rick Marken (2003.03.17.0810)--

>PCT shows that we only "have to" act to
>bring controlled perceptions to reference states and protect those
>variables from disturbance.

Yes, and HPCT shows that error signals become lower level reference
conditions.

This is true. But it doesn't seem to do with what I said. Basically, what I said
is that, without a controlled variable there is no strong relationship between
disturbance and action.

It is and has been my contention all along that Saddam has created huge
errors.

Of course. But _why_ does he create huge errors? It's only because of references
in the heads of those who are experiencing the errors. These references specify
the desired states of perceptions. Saddam pushes these perceptions away from those
references. So Saddam is a disturbance (and probably the source of some error) in
the people who are controlling those perceptions. He is not a disturbance to those
who are not controlling those perceptions.

Saddam has not created error in me for the last 12 years. He did create some error
when he invaded Kuwait in '91 but that's because one of my goals is for countries
not to invade other sovereign countries. Bush seems to create no error in you but
that's because you are not controlling any variables to which Bush's actions are a
disturbance. But Bush's actions are creating error in the variables controlled by
most people in the world, who see him as a bigger threat than Saddam.

My point is that Saddam doesn't produce error simply because he is intrinsically
error producing. Same is true of Bush. People are error producing only to the
extent that their actions are a disturbance to perceptions people control. If you
focus only on the error you miss this _very_ important point, which is really the
essence of PCT. Don't you agree?

What exactly does Bushs' ( mister apostrophe police, is this correct? :slight_smile: )
goal of remaining in office have to do with it?

If Bush steps down he can't have a war with Iraq. Of course, Bush would have to
step down in favor of the actual elected President, Gore, since Cheney et al would
go ahead with the war.

You either refuse to, or don't understand the importance of the
intermediate reference conditions.

I guess not. I don't see their relevance to what I am saying, which is: no goal,
no disturbance.

Disturbances occur only once in the
control process.

Not true. They are continuous. Disturbances are always influencing the state of a
controlled variable.

When the variable goes through the environment. But a
variable is exposed to all kinds of changes through different error paths
through the hierarchy. You can never do just _one_ thing. A change in one
could and probably does affect any number of lower level reference
conditions _without_ necessarily changing the higher level goals.

This, again, has nothing to with my point. The point is that environmental
variations are disturbances only to the extent that they have an effect on a
controlled variable. And there is no controlled variable unless there is a goal
(reference) for a perceptual variable. Saddam would not be a disturbance (and
thus, a cause of war) if Bush et al were not controlling perceptions to which
Saddam's actions (or existence) were a disturbance.

>People impose conflicts like this on themselves by adopting goals that
>make these
>conflicts seem "inevitable" from their point of view. Bush and Co.

I disagree. I think most people don't "adopt" anything. Not consciously at
least,

I agree. Adopt is probably the wrong word. Goals are set by higher level systems
(presumably); they are not necessarily adopted consciously.

>The illusion of external causation is
>a _very_ compelling illusion, as we all know.

It's not external causation. It's internal reference condition generation.

Exactly. There is no appearance of external causation bu a variable unless there
is a reference for a perception influenced by that variable.

Best

Rick

···

--
Richard S. Marken, Ph.D.
Senior Behavioral Scientist
The RAND Corporation
PO Box 2138
1700 Main Street
Santa Monica, CA 90407-2138
Tel: 310-393-0411 x7971
Fax: 310-451-7018
E-mail: rmarken@rand.org

From [Bruce Gregory (2003.0318.1433)]

Marc Abrams (2003.03.17.1219)

What exactly does Bushs' ( mister apostrophe police, is this correct? :slight_smile: )
goal of remaining in office have to do with it?

No. Bush's goal.

···

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

www.joincanadanow.org

From [ Marc Abrams (2003.03.17.1633) ]

[From Rick Marken (2003.03.18.1250)]

Of course. But _why_ does he create huge errors? It's only because of
references
in the heads of those who are experiencing the errors. These references
specify
the desired states of perceptions. Saddam pushes these perceptions away
from those
references. So Saddam is a disturbance (and probably the source of some
error) in
the people who are controlling those perceptions. He is not a disturbance
to those
who are not controlling those perceptions.

Saddam is more then a disturbance. A disturbance affects a variable _once_
as it goes through the environment, but a variable could be affected
throughout the hierarchy, taking multiple paths down and potentially
multiple levels up the hierarchy. I would think that most "actions" are not
directly, closely related to, the highest level goals.

But Bush's actions are creating error in the variables controlled by
most people in the world, who see him as a bigger threat than Saddam.

70% of the _American_ people agree with me. I really don't care what France
& Germany think,. If you think the "rest of the world" consists of France,
Germany, Russia, and China, good for you. Right now we have 34 countries
who are going to assist us. All the above countries have their own self
interests. France, Russia, and Germany probably have the most to lose
economically, if Saddam is ousted. To Bad. The rest of the world did not
experience 9/11.

My point is that Saddam doesn't produce error simply because he is
intrinsically
error producing. Same is true of Bush.

Of course.

People are error producing only to the
extent that their actions are a disturbance to perceptions people control.

Exactly. Which is probably to some extent, most of the time, with most
variables..

If you
focus only on the error you miss this _very_ important point, which is
really the
essence of PCT. Don't you agree?

Not totally. I agree that it is a _very_ important point. I don't agree
that you "miss" something important by looking at error (or some correlate
to it ) I think if you "focus" on anyone thing in exclusion of other
aspects of the model you are making a mistake. It is a continuous process.
There is no One more "important" aspect of the model then another. But,
with that said. It does not mean that looking at the different aspects are
not _useful_. It's obvious that error can _only_ occur to a CV.( one of the
more practical views ) So a reference condition and a perception are a
_given_. All Perceptions and Reference conditions are _not_ created equal.
Some Reference conditions are Intrinsic. Most are not. Most come into being
by the errors that occur at the various levels, and some are imagined at
our highest levels. Perceptions can come from memory as well as our senses.
Bill threw out a notion, which you did not comment on. The notion of a
Perceptual signal becoming a lower level reference condition, like memory
in the model on Pg 221 of B:CP. What's your feeling about this?

If Bush steps down he can't have a war with Iraq. Of course, Bush would
have to
step down in favor of the actual elected President, Gore, since Cheney et
al would
go ahead with the war.

According to our Constitution, which you like to ignore, Gore lost. Period.
If you want to vote in a country that uses a simple plurality in the
popular vote, you'll have to move to a different country. Btw, Clinton did
not win with a _majority_ he won with a _plurality_. _Big_ difference. I
wonder how many of those who voted for the inventor of the Internet came
from illegal's voting in Texas, California and New York. There are 6
million Illegal Mexicans in California alone.

I guess not. I don't see their relevance to what I am saying, which is: no
goal,
no disturbance.

No. You have a Top level reference condition for among _many_ other things.
"Peace". The travel down through out the hierarchy in you produces an
action of No war. For me the path is not quite that simple or direct. I
also have a top level goal for "Peace" but I experience tremendous error
when I think of leaving Saddam in power.

> Disturbances occur only once in the
> control process.

Not true. They are continuous. Disturbances are always influencing the
state of a
controlled variable.

I didn't say that right. Sorry. Disturbances affect a variable only when
the variable moves through the environment. A variable can affect multiple
reference conditions and in turn be affected by many other
variables.through out the hierarchy _before_ it ever gets to the environment.

This, again, has nothing to with my point. The point is that environmental
variations are disturbances only to the extent that they have an effect on a
controlled variable. And there is no controlled variable unless there is a
goal
(reference) for a perceptual variable.

I agree, but you did not address _my_ point.

Rick, I do _not_ disagree with anything you say. I am simply looking at
the HPCT model from a different perspective. Some very important concepts
are at this point simply that, Imagined concepts. It is in this vain that I
speak of them. In re-reading B:CP (specifically Chapters 13 -15 ) I am
struck by several things..One, is Bill's uncertainty with regard to the
higher levels ( 6 & Up ). Not clarity in thought, but true uncertainty
about the "true" nature and structure that actually exists at these higher
levels ( if not for the entire hierarchy ) He spoke then about possibly
"missing" a level on several occasions ( he subsequently added a level to
the model ) and what really hit home was the complexity at the Program
Level. This level alone seems to be capable of having a hierarchy, or
network, _within_ the existing level.

It's at this level (Program) that I am focusing my efforts. It's the level
that can accommodates a possible "model", deduction, decision tree's,
Planning, and Evaluations of all kinds. This is not a simple level. I
believe a lot can happen to a CV by the ultimate _path_ that the CV takes
through the hierarchy, ultimately going through the environment, and then
being disturbed. Am I making myself clear here? If not, what is confusing?
How do _you_ see what I am trying to explain? I leave these questions open
to everyone. Not just Rick.

If I can establish a correlation between error and Heart variability, which
I am attempting to do with the tracking task. Then "Stress" takes on a very
elegant definition. Because it has already been established that Heart rate
variability is a direct correlate of "emotion" With levels of "emotion"
correlated to levels of "Stress". Unfortunately the entire field of
Psychophysiology's underlying theory of human behavior is the linear cause
and effect model. _That_ is about to change, or at least I hope so. :slight_smile: I
have been in touch with the folks who sell the Heart Variability Meter
(HVM) _HeartMath_ ( a non profit org) and I have spoken to there lead
researcher/scientist. He never heard of PCT or Bill. We spoke for about 30
minutes I told him about my research project and a bit about PCT. I sent a
follow=up e-mail with link to a paper on Bill's web page, CSGnet, and
Rick's page. He seemed genuinely interested in both my research and PCT.
Interested to the point that he ( and his org ) might be interested in
partaking in the research. he said he would get back to me within the week.
I believe Psychophysiology is the area I need to focus in on with regard to
HPCT.

Marc

···

At 12:57 PM 3/18/2003 -0500, you wrote:

[From Bruce Gregory (2003.0318.1958)]

Marc Abrams (2003.03.17.1633)

No. You have a Top level reference condition for among _many_ other things.
"Peace". The travel down through out the hierarchy in you produces an
action of No war. For me the path is not quite that simple or direct. I
also have a top level goal for "Peace" but I experience tremendous error
when I think of leaving Saddam in power.

It seems to me that you would like to have a top level goal of "Peace"
but it simply isn't the case. You are _not_ defending a perception of
Peace. It is much more important to you that Saddam be overthrown than
that peace prevail. In this respect you are in complete agreement with
Bush. But don't kid yourself. Complex paths have nothing to do with it.
The Test makes it clear what perception you are controlling at the
highest level, and Peace ain't it. (Note correct placement of apostrophe.)

···

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

www.joincanadanow.org

From [ Marc Abrams (2003.03.17.2154) ]

[From Bruce Gregory (2003.0318.1958)]

It seems to me that you would like to have a top level goal of "Peace"
but it simply isn't the case.

At what level are you proposing it resides? And how did it move to a lower
level? Or are you suggesting that Peace was never a consideration or goal
of mine? If the Latter you are _badly_ mistaken. If the former, how do you
explain it?

You are _not_ defending a perception of
Peace.

Yes I am. If Saddam & Co. would leave Iraq. There would be no war. I would
be tickled pink. But unfortunately I can't control what Saddam does. I
couldn't stop him from gassing his own people and I could not stop him from
invading Iran and Kuwait. I am not defending the perception of a Peace at
_all costs_ under _any_ circumstance. That is correct. But I do have a high
level goal for it. At what level do you think it resides? It seems my
definition & perceptions of a just Peace is different then yours. Does that
make it _not_ a top level goal? I don't think so.

I abhor war. I spent 18 months in Vietnam on a helicopter Evac and supply
unit. Saddam is not worth one pile of excrement from one of our boys, let
alone one drop of blood. Have you ever had to worry about losing your life
Bruce? Did you ever think that you might die at _any_ moment? Don't _EVER_
tell me I'm not controlling for peace. I may not be willing to sell my soul
to devil for it. I cherish freedom more then peace,and when I say freedom I
mean not having to live under the _threat_ or fear of violence. In this
particular case I believe the threat to be more real then imagined.
(Meaning the facts I have used to come to my understanding. It is all
imagination, really. Including your views )We'll find out soon enough who
had the better imagination :wink: Gee Bruce, do you think you disturbed a
CV?. If it's not a top level goal, where does it reside?

Did you hear about the Iraqi Republican Guard units that don't want to
fight & want to surrender immediately. Apparently other's think Saddam is
not worth dieing for. Good for them.

It is much more important to you that Saddam be overthrown than
that peace prevail. In this respect you are in complete agreement with
Bush.

Yes. I don't believe we can _ever_ have a just and lasting peace with
Saddam hanging over us. I feel the same way about Korea and the
Fundamentalist Islamists. I do not want war with anyone. I just don't want
them threatening me, my family or my country. Leave me and us alone.

But don't kid yourself. Complex paths have nothing to do with it.
The Test makes it clear what perception you are controlling at the
highest level, and Peace ain't it. (Note correct placement of apostrophe.)

Don't kid yourself. Complex paths have _everything_ to do with it. You
think, sanctimoniously, that _your_ perception of Peace is the just and
right one. Sorry pal. There are different flavors. All brought to you by
different perceptions and different reference conditions. I forgot that
your a fortune teller :slight_smile: You see into the future and with the Test you can
now read peoples minds (excuse the wrong use of apostrophe's ) You are
really amaaaaaazing. Since I am not controlling for Peace, besides war,
what else am I controlling for and at what levels do these reference
conditions reside?

Marc

···

At 07:58 PM 3/18/2003 -0500, you wrote:

[From Rick Marken (2003.03.18.2020)]

Marc Abrams (2003.03.17.1633)

Saddam is more then a disturbance. A disturbance affects a variable _once_
as it goes through the environment, but a variable could be affected
throughout the hierarchy, taking multiple paths down and potentially
multiple levels up the hierarchy. I would think that most "actions" are not
directly, closely related to, the highest level goals.

I haven't got the slightest idea what you are talking about. Disturbances are
environmental variables that continuously affect the state of a controlled
variable. A controlled variable is a perceived aspect of the environment. To
the extent that Saddam is an environmental variable that affects the state some
controlled variable he is a disturbance. What am I missing?

>But Bush's actions are creating error in the variables controlled by
>most people in the world, who see him as a bigger threat than Saddam.

70% of the _American_ people agree with me. I really don't care what France
& Germany think.

Of course. I'm very aware of that. I was not trying to convince you that you
should change your mind about this. I am simply pointing out that environmental
variables (like the actions of Saddam or Bush or Sharon) are disturbances only
to the extent that people are controlling for perceptions that are disturbed by
these variables.

>People are error producing only to the
>extent that their actions are a disturbance to perceptions people control.

Exactly. Which is probably to some extent, most of the time, with most
variables.

This is probably true. But the effect of the disturbance is different depending
on what people are controlling for.

Bill threw out a notion, which you did not comment on. The notion of a
Perceptual signal becoming a lower level reference condition, like memory
in the model on Pg 221 of B:CP. What's your feeling about this?

In the memory model I think it's a lower level reference that is switched back
into the perceptual path. This model makes sense to me because it fits with my
experience; I can want a certain perception (like my hand in a fist) and produce
that perception in fact (by watching as I make a fist) or produce the same
perception in imagination. In the first case we have the usual control model;
reference (for fist) results in actions that produce a perception (of a fist).
In the second case the reference results in the imagined perception of a fist; I
get the perception I want without having to do anything.

I don't recall Bill talking about a perceptual signal becoming a lower level
reference. Off hand I can't think of any experience that it explains. Do you
remember why Bill proposed it?

According to our Constitution, which you like to ignore, Gore lost. Period.

Actually, according to the Supreme Court Gore lost. He might have lost
constitutionally (in the Electoral College) if there were a recount but that was
not allowed.

Disturbances affect a variable only when
the variable moves through the environment.

What is a variable that "moves through the environment"? Some variables are
movements (like rates of change, accelerations) but some variables don't move at
all for long periods of time (like the pattern of coins in the coin game).

It's at this level (Program) that I am focusing my efforts. It's the level
that can accommodates a possible "model", deduction, decision tree's,
Planning, and Evaluations of all kinds. This is not a simple level. I
believe a lot can happen to a CV by the ultimate _path_ that the CV takes
through the hierarchy, ultimately going through the environment, and then
being disturbed. Am I making myself clear here? If not, what is confusing?

The idea that variables move or have paths through the hierarchy. It doesn't
make sense to me. I'm glad that you want to study program perception. But I
think it's important to be sure you understand control of "simple" perceptions
first. And, as I said, I have studies the control of program perceptions. Have
you read up on that one yet? If so, maybe I could get a better idea of where you
want to go with the study of program control by commenting on my study.

If I can establish a correlation between error and Heart variability, which
I am attempting to do with the tracking task. Then "Stress" takes on a very
elegant definition.

Yes. I think it's best to focus on that one first.

Best regards

Rick

···

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

From [ Marc Abrams (2003.03.17,2340) ]

[From Rick Marken
(2003.03.18.2020)]

Marc Abrams (2003.03.17.1633)

Saddam is more then a disturbance. A disturbance affects a variable
once

as it goes through the environment, but a variable could be
affected

throughout the hierarchy, taking multiple paths down and
potentially

multiple levels up the hierarchy. I would think that most
“actions” are not

directly, closely related to, the highest level goals.

I haven’t got the slightest idea what you are talking
about.

I am quoting from pg. 163 in B:CP; Bill is talking about the Program
level, then level 7 in the hierarchy.
“… I am very gingerly approaching an interpretation of seventh
order organization which I know will be controversial in some quarters. I
am saying, in effect, that our own seventh level of organization is in
fact computerlike, and that reality as seen from this level is much like
a computer simulation of reality.
I am not
sure how to deal with perceptions at this level. If I were to follow the
pattern laid down at lower orders, I would assert that one perceives the
existence of a program-like structure (italics mine) at this
level, compares it with a reference structure and on the basis of
the error alters the lower order relationships, and so on. But that
doesn’t seem properly to fit the way programs work: they involve
perceptions, but the perceptions are part of the if-then tests that
create the network of contingencies which is the heart of the program.
Perhaps a level is missing here. If what follows is slightly ambiguous,
therefore, be assured that this is not because of a simple blunder but
because of genuine indecision. Thinking about thinking is somewhat
paradoxical.”
He then goes on to explain on Pg 164 that;
The program point of view, without saying precisely what that point of
view is. “This point of view goes, I believe, under another name;
rationality (italics his). It is at this level that we think in a
logical deductive manner. I do not necessarily mean formal logic here;
programs can be organized ( emphasis mine) to obey any imaginable
rules. At the program level we have not only deduction but superstition,
grammatical rules, expectations about the consequences of behavior in the
physical world ( models ), experimental procedures, mathematical
algorithms recipes for cooking and chemistry, and strategies of business,
games, conversation, and love-making … (skip one sentence )… One
man’s rationality may be another man’s insanity, but that is only a
matter of choice of programS (emphasis mine)”

Now do you see what I mean?

Disturbances are

environmental variables that continuously affect the state of a
controlled

variable. A controlled variable is a perceived aspect of the
environment. To

the extent that Saddam is an environmental variable that affects the
state some

controlled variable he is a disturbance. What am I
missing?

Nothing. When we say continuous we do not mean instantaneous, do we? A
variable travels around the loop ( hierarchy )continuously. Memory
can both become a perception to a higher level input function and it can
become a reference condition for a lower level, It can do one or both at
the same time, 2 switches in 2 positions = 4 possibilities. Bill explains
them in Chapter 15. Saddam does not necessarily have to be an
environmental variable. he could be in memory without ever going into the
environment. Am I mistaken here?

Of course. I’m very aware of that.
I was not trying to convince you that you

should change your mind about this. I am simply pointing out that
environmental

variables (like the actions of Saddam or Bush or Sharon) are disturbances
only

to the extent that people are controlling for perceptions that are
disturbed by

these variables.

Yes I understand and agree. I am only saying that Perceptions and
Reference conditions do not necessarily go through the environment.

This is probably true. But the
effect of the disturbance is different depending

on what people are controlling for.

Yes, and also how memory is utilized with regard to the error that might
be produced.

In the memory model I think it’s a
lower level reference that is switched back

into the perceptual path.

This is not the only possibility. Please give Chap. 15 a quick peek. I
would like to discuss this.

I don’t recall Bill talking about a
perceptual signal becoming a lower level

reference. Off hand I can’t think of any experience that it explains. Do
you

remember why Bill proposed it?

I believe it was in one of his responses to Bruce Nevin. I will check the
posts and see if I can find it…

Actually, according to the Supreme
Court Gore lost. He might have lost

constitutionally (in the Electoral College) if there were a recount but
that was

not allowed.

There was a recount, In fact there were 3 recounts. The NY times even
conducted a recount and Bush actually gained some votes. But while we are
at it. Maybe we should recount South Dakota. Daschle won by 104 votes
with 300 dead Indians voting for him. He is a disgrace. If he the best
of the Democratic Party you are in deep do -do.

Disturbances affect a variable
only when

the variable moves through the environment.

What is a variable that “moves through the environment”?
Some variables are

movements (like rates of change, accelerations) but some variables don’t
move at

all for long periods of time (like the pattern of coins in the coin
game).

See Bill’s explanation of variables at the program level. That’s all I
meant.

The idea that variables move or
have paths through the hierarchy. It doesn’t

make sense to me.

See above.

I’m glad that you want to study
program perception. But I

think it’s important to be sure you understand control of
“simple” perceptions

first.

I think I do. Please explain what I don’t seem to understand?

And, as I said, I have studies the
control of program perceptions. Have

you read up on that one yet? If so, maybe I could get a better idea of
where you

want to go with the study of program control by commenting on my
study.

No I haven’t seen it. Where can I find it? Btw, I haven’t gotten your
Experimental Psych book yet. I’m kind of surprised.

If I can establish a
correlation between error and Heart variability, which

I am attempting to do with the tracking task. Then
“Stress” takes on a very

elegant definition.

Yes. I think it’s best to focus on that one first.

I agree. One step at a time. But that doesn’t necessarily mean I can’t
talk about other things that interest me does it? :slight_smile: Memory is not
needed in my initial experiments. It will be needed in subsequent work.

Marc

···

At 08:17 PM 3/18/2003 -0800, you wrote:

[From Bruce Gregory (2003.0319.0717)]

Marc Abrams (2003.03.17.2154)

What you call "peace" I call survival. Saddam threatens your perception
of survival. Everything you have said is consistent with this
interpretation. My perception of survival is threatened more by Bush
than it is by Saddam. In that sense we differ greatly. Bush is capable
of provoking a nuclear war, Saddam is not. Bush is recruiting Islamic
fundamentalist terrorists, Saddam is not. The world would be a much
safer place without Bush's pursuit of "American Ideals", Saddam is only
a small-time thug.

···

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

www.joincanadanow.org

[From Bruce Gregory (2003.0319.0721)]

Rick Marken (2003.03.18.2020)

I want to publicly acknowledge that I have badly misjudged you. You have
the patience of Job.

···

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

www.joincanadanow.org

from [ Wolfgang Zocher (2003.03.19.1440)]

From [ Marc Abrams (2003.03.17.1633) ]

... I really don't care what France
& Germany think,. If you think the "rest of the world" consists of France,
Germany, Russia, and China, good for you. Right now we have 34 countries
who are going to assist us. All the above countries have their own self
interests. France, Russia, and Germany probably have the most to lose
economically, if Saddam is ousted. To Bad. The rest of the world did not
experience 9/11.

Poor Marc.

Wordless in front of so much arrogance & ignorance for those going for peace
and not for war.

···

--
Wolfgang Zocher

-------------------------------------------------------------------
www: http://wzocher.bei.t-online.de/
-------------------------------------------------------------------

From [ Marc Abrams (2003.03.18.1037) ]

[From Bruce Gregory (2003.0319.0717)]

What you call "peace" I call survival. Saddam threatens your perception
of survival. Everything you have said is consistent with this
interpretation.

_Your_ interpretation. I disagree. I can say the same for your views on Bush.

My perception of survival is threatened more by Bush
than it is by Saddam.

Then I suggest that if Saddam decides to vacate, that you join him wherever
he happens to go. Of course if he is killed or captured I don't think that
would be a good idea and would not wish that for you.

In that sense we differ greatly. Bush is capable
of provoking a nuclear war, Saddam is not.

Or so you believe. I don't.

Bush is recruiting Islamic
fundamentalist terrorists, Saddam is not.

Again, a view I don't subscribe to Do you really believe the Islamists
would "love" America if only Bill Clinton were still President. They showed
their love for him in 1993 with the First WTC attack. The fundamentalist
Islamists hate freedom and everything we stand for. They want the entire
world to be Muslim and move back to the 6th Century. I'm not quite sure
what your defending?

The world would be a much
safer place without Bush's pursuit of "American Ideals", Saddam is only
a small-time thug.

A small time thug that happens to run a country and is responsible for the
death of thousands of innocents.

I'll give you the last word Bruce, because I will not respond to anything
else on this thread. I'm cooked.

Marc

···

At 07:17 AM 3/19/2003 -0500, you wrote:

From [ Marc Abrams (2003.03.18.1102) ]

From [ Wolfgang Zocher
(2003.03.19.1440)]

Poor Marc.

Wordless in front of so much arrogance & ignorance for those going
for peace

and not for war.

Arrogance?, hardly. Ignorance?, Please point out where I am wrong or
where my thinking is misplaced. Your from Germany Wolfgang. How much
truth is in the statement that Germany and the rising anti-semitism (
desecration of Jewish cemetery’s, synagogues, etc.) in Europe seems like
old times. The 1930’s all over again. I am not accusing or blaming you
personally, but it seems Europe is heading in a bad direction.

From an NRO article by William R. Hawkins on 2/10/03. Mind you Wolfgang,
I am usually not cynical but give me a break.

“…But the idea of sending
U.N. troops to Iraq is far more dangerous than a “diversion.”
It must be considered within the framework of France and Germany’s main
objective, which is to prevent the U.S. from imposing a regime change in
Iraq that would remove Saddam from power. Both European states have
financial ties to Saddam’s regime which would be jeopardized if Iraq were
liberated. Business interests which had collaborated with the brutal
dictatorship would not be in the good graces of a new government
representing those who had been oppressed. France has the larger exposure
involving oil, but Germany has been a major trading partner to Iraq and
is thought to have provided goods used by Baghdad in its weapons
programs. A thorough postwar examination of Iraq’s dealings with Paris
and Berlin could be very embarrassing.”…

Looking forward to this.

Marc

···

At 02:42 PM 3/19/2003 +0100, you wrote:

[From Rick Marken (2003.03.19.1150)]

Marc Abrams (2003.03.17.1633)

Saddam is more then a disturbance. A disturbance affects a variable _once_
as it goes through the environment, but a variable could be affected
throughout the hierarchy, taking multiple paths down and potentially
multiple levels up the hierarchy. I would think that most "actions" are not
directly, closely related to, the highest level goals.

Me:

I haven't got the slightest idea what you are talking about.

Marc Abrams (2003.03.17,2340) --

I am quoting from pg. 163 in B:CP; Bill is talking about the Program level,
then level 7 in the hierarchy.

".... I am very gingerly approaching an interpretation of seventh order
organization which I know will be controversial in some quarters....

He then goes on to explain on Pg 164 that;

"The program point of view, without saying precisely what that point of view

is...

Now do you see what I mean?

I'm afraid not. Bill is talking about how programs might be represented as
perceptions. The quote I had problems with (see above) was about disturbances
affecting a variable _once_ as it _goes through_ the environment.

When we say continuous we do not mean instantaneous, do we?

No.

A variable travels around the loop( hierarchy) continuously.

Variables don't travel around the loop. The _effects_ of one variable on another
are propagated around the loop. Consider two variables, x and y. There is a closed
loop of effects of one variable on another when y = f(x) and, simultaneously, x =
g(y). x and y vary over time and as they do they vary in terms of the effects that
propagate around the loop. But the variables themselves always stay where they
are.

Saddam does not necessarily have to be an environmental variable.
he could be in memory without ever going into the environment.
Am I mistaken here?

Yes. But if Saddam exists only as an imagined perception (that disturbs a higher
level perception) then it's crazy to try to solve that problem by waging war. It
would be like trying to catch the tooth fairy by putting a bear trap under the
pillow with the tooth.

I am only saying that Perceptions and Reference conditions do not
necessarily go through the environment.

Ah. What I understand this to mean is that some perceptions (god, the tooth fairy)
are not based on sensory data. They are imaginations. And I agree that this is
true. I think you'll agree, then, that it would be quite useless (or, at least,
insane) to act on the real world in order to control perceptions that are
disturbed by imagined perceptions. Going off to kill people because they are
imagined to be a disturbance to a perception you care about is really insane,
isn't it?

Daschle won by 104 votes with 300 dead Indians voting for him.
He is a _disgrace_. If he the best of the Democratic Party you are
in deep do -do.

Daschle strikes me as a decent though not particularly charismatic guy. I think
Democrats can do (and did do) much better with Bill Clinton, a very smart, very
decent person. But look what happened to him. I think the right wing in this
country has driven itself nuts with its mindless hatred.

Me:

And, as I said, I have studies the control of program perceptions. Have
you read up on that one yet? If so, maybe I could get a better idea of where you

want to go with the study of program control by commenting on my study.

Marc:

No I haven't seen it. Where can I find it?

As I said, the program control experiment is described in the _Hierarchical
behavior of perception_ chapter of _More Mind Readings_.

Best regards

Rick

···

---
Richard S. Marken, Ph.D.
Senior Behavioral Scientist
The RAND Corporation
PO Box 2138
1700 Main Street
Santa Monica, CA 90407-2138
Tel: 310-393-0411 x7971
Fax: 310-451-7018
E-mail: rmarken@rand.org

[From Bruce Gregory (2003.0319.12010]

Marc Abrams (2003.03.18.1037)

I'm not going to argue with you. I'll let Marc Abrams do that.

I said.

What you call "peace" I call survival. Saddam threatens your perception
of survival. Everything you have said is consistent with this
interpretation.

One Marc said:

_Your_ interpretation. I disagree.

Another Marc said:

> Yes. I don't believe we can _ever_ have a just and lasting peace with
> Saddam hanging over us. I feel the same way about Korea and the
> Fundamentalist Islamists. I do not want war with anyone. I just don't
> want
> them threatening me, my family or my country. Leave me and us alone.

You two guys fight it out.

···

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

www.joincanadanow.org

From [ Marc Abrams (2003.03.18.1102) ]

Arrogance?, hardly. Ignorance?, Please point out where I am wrong or
where my thinking is misplaced. Your from Germany Wolfgang. How much
truth is in the statement that Germany and the rising anti-semitism (
desecration of Jewish cemetery's, synagogues, etc.) in Europe seems like
old times. The 1930's all over again.

Thats simply nonsense. In Germany, these discussions came up recently
when some politicans critisized the way Sharon is handling the
conflict with palestina. I think that it must be possible to criticize
Sharon, even in Germany! And this has NOTHING to do with old times and
the 1930's.

Mind you Wolfgang, I am usually not cynical but give me a break.

I'm not sure about that, but ...

NRO article deleted; its just the view of one columnist and the
tendency in this article is anti-german. I don't like such simple
minded statements which are not proved to be right.

I know that twenty years ago (maybe longer) Germany had some economic
connections to Iraq (like the US and a lot of other countries)

And if Saddam has used some of the goods he got from Germany to build
weapons: this is Saddams failure. A knife can be used to cut bread or
to kill someone....

from 1991 until now Germany has frozen all trading connections to
Iraq following an UN resolution.

That's all I can say about this defamatory article.

As a member of the first generation after WW II the USA were, for a long
time, the ultimative state. All the more I'm dissapointed about the way
the US are represented today - they have the biggest and strongest
army of the world and they let us know that they have the demand for
beeing number one and the demand for doing what they want to do. Today
they occupy Iraq, tomorrow maybe Iran and maybe they punish Germany
for the refusal of breaking international law. This holier-than-thou
attitude of the US government is very very bad. And from my point of
view the defamation of other people or countries which can't accept a
war is at least arrogant and ignorant.

Talking about the goals Bush may have, a lot of my friends believe
that the only goal is "oil". I don't think so, but I really don't see
that the US is forced to defend against Iraq...

Wolfgang

···

--
Wolfgang Zocher http://wzocher.bei.t-online.de
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unix _IS_ user friendly - it's just selective about who its friends are.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

[From Rick Marken (2003.03.19.1610)]

Wolfgang Zocher (2003.03.19) --

Marc Abrams (2003.03.18.1102)

> Arrogance?, hardly. Ignorance?, Please point out where I am wrong or
> where my thinking is misplaced. Your from Germany Wolfgang. How much
> truth is in the statement that Germany and the rising anti-semitism (
> desecration of Jewish cemetery's, synagogues, etc.) in Europe seems like
> old times. The 1930's all over again.

Thats simply nonsense. In Germany, these discussions came up recently
when some politicans critisized the way Sharon is handling the
conflict with palestina. I think that it must be possible to criticize
Sharon, even in Germany! And this has NOTHING to do with old times and
the 1930's.

As a member of the first generation after WW II the USA were, for a long
time, the ultimative state. All the more I'm dissapointed about the way
the US are represented today - they have the biggest and strongest
army of the world and they let us know that they have the demand for
beeing number one and the demand for doing what they want to do. Today
they occupy Iraq, tomorrow maybe Iran and maybe they punish Germany
for the refusal of breaking international law. This holier-than-thou
attitude of the US government is very very bad. And from my point of
view the defamation of other people or countries which can't accept a
war is at least arrogant and ignorant.

Thanks Wolfgang. Wonderful post.

The experience of living in the US now helps me know what it must have felt like
to be a normal, decent person in 1930s Germany and have your country hijacked by
lunatics. As a Jew (also a member of the first generation after WWII) I was
taught to hate Germans because they were intrinsically evil people. Then as a
young man I traveled in Europe and learned that Germans (like yourself) are some
of the most wonderful people on earth. And I married an American of German
background and she's treated me pretty well, too :wink:

So I figured that better Germans were born after the war or in the US. Yes, I'm
really _that_ stupid. But the experience of the last couple of years has made me
realize just how stupid I was. Germans in the1930s were just like all people. Some
were good, some were not so good. Most were surely just like me; decent people who
saw bad things happening but did not have the power to do anything about it.

Most tragic of all, the Jews who suffered most during that awful period, have
become some of the worst oppressors in the world. They just murdered an American
girl, my daughter's age, because she was standing in front of a house they were
going to bulldoze. There was no apology from Israel or a demand for an apology
from the US, apparently because this courageous little girl -- my daughter's age,
and just as caring and intelligent based on a last letter of hers that was
published in the LA Times -- was standing in front of the house of a presumed
"terrorist". The oppressed become the oppressors. So much for "lessons learned".

I was in Europe (including Germany) when the USA was considered the ultimate state
and Americans were beloved. I think that has become a thing of the past. A
terrible, hateful reactionary cancer has been infecting America for years. I date
it's start in the early 80s but it's gotten worse and worse. I don't think people
here in America realize just how much we (our government, anyway) are now despised
in Europe.

It's getting really hard to identify with anyone anymore. I'm embarrassed to be
an American. I am embarrassed to be a Jew. The only thing left is PCT. But I
think that's safe. So far, no one who I consider to be a fellow PCTer has done
anything as embarrassing as what the US and Israeli governments are doing.

Best regards

Rick

···

--
Richard S. Marken, Ph.D.
Senior Behavioral Scientist
The RAND Corporation
PO Box 2138
1700 Main Street
Santa Monica, CA 90407-2138
Tel: 310-393-0411 x7971
Fax: 310-451-7018
E-mail: rmarken@rand.org

[From Bill Powers (2003.03.19.1404 MST)]

Wolfgang Zocher (2003.03.19) --

>Today
>they occupy Iraq, tomorrow maybe Iran and maybe they punish Germany
>for the refusal of breaking international law. This holier-than-thou
>attitude of the US government is very very bad. And from my point of
>view the defamation of other people or countries which can't accept a
>war is at least arrogant and ignorant.

I agree with you, Wolfgang. The United States seems to be going back to the
Bad Old Days of Manifest Destiny, when we assumed that anything we wanted
to do for our own good was acceptable, and the rest of the world was just
there to be exploited. Many people think that way today.

If we had any credible evidence that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass
destruction and was about to use them, or was actively supporting
terrorists, I am sure I would have thought differently about all this --
but then the French and Germans and Russians would thought differently,
too. The problem is that the US government has provided nothing to convince
reasonable people either at home or abroad that it is not just making
things up to justify actions it decided long ago to carry out for reasons
it is not making public. The so-called "intelligence" it has revealed to
the world is too feeble to convince anyone but a person who is ready to
believe anything anyway, and who doesn't really need reasons to go to war.
The United States is about to attack a non-belligerent nation because of
what our leaders imagine might possibly be true, not what they know to be
true. To me that is the coward's way, the bully's way, the way of paranoia.

What bothers and embarrasses me the most is our leaders' failure to apply
the very ideas on which this country was founded to our relationships with
other nations. If the same tactics were used at home, there would be a vast
outcry and an uprising at such a betrayal of American moral and legal
principles. The way we are behaving as a nation is not the way I or many
others wish to behave: as selfish cowards willing to do anything to anybody
just to save our own miserable necks.

Best,

Bill P.