X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Posted-Date: Sat, 12 Sep 92 17:23:26 PDT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.csg-l
Date:         Sat, 12 Sep 1992 17:23:26 PDT
From:         marken@AERO.ORG
Subject:      Morals and Malfunctions

[From Rick Marken (920912.1700)]

Well, thank goodness someone responded to my "autonomy" and
"drug wars" post. Thanks Dennis.
Let me respond to one of your comments:

Dennis Delprato (920912) says:

> From this, one postulate of PCT is individual autonomy.

I think "autonomy" is just a word (with some existing connotations
that seem appropriate, and, perhaps, some that are not) that is
used to describe the operation of the HPCT model; at least, that's
how I meant to use it. Instead of saying "autonomy" I could have
loaded up my spreadsheet model, hit the F9 key to start it and
stood pointing silently as higher level systems told lower
level systems what to perceive in order to satisfy the perceptual
goals of the higher level systems.

>Nor, do I suggest that Rick's and Bill's use of autonomy
>above calls for an autonomy postulate of the sort found in
>mainstream psychology.  I find them saying (a) people have
>a right to be left alone unless they harm others and (b)
>a fundamental outcome of the way that people function
>psychologically is that given certain (unnecessary)
>disturbances they may adjust in ways that are unpredictable,
>not liked by others, disruptive to themselves....

Speaking for myself, I meant to say something a lot more like like (b)
than (a). I think it is good to point this out. My discussion of the
drug war was not meant to make a moral point; I am not arguing
(with Thomas Jefferson) that people have an inalienable right to
be free (if they are not hurting anyone). People might perceive
rights and they might try to control those perceptions. But that
is not a moral point; it is a scientific one, which can be tested
and rejected.

What I was discussing was malfunctions, not morals. If there is
a fundemental postulate of PCT it is that organisms are control
systems. A functioning control system is able to make its
perceptual experience match it's references for that experience;
I call this "autonomy" -- the normal operation of a control
system. Anything that prevents normal operation is the cause
of a malfunction. Conflict is an example of a control system
malfunction; conflict prevents autonomy -- ie. the ability to control.

The drug war is an example of control systems IN CONFLICT. So
the drug war is an example of control systems that are MAL-
FUNCTIONING. There is no moral judgment here; that would
imply that I LIKE the goals of one group (the drug warriors)
better than I like those of another (the drug takers). I fact,
I personally don't care for either of their goals -- but that
is NOT why I don't like the drug war. I don't like it because
there is CONFLICT  between control systems; as I said, this
conflict MIGHT have unpleasant side effects for me (I might
get robbed by a druggie who has to pay ridiculously high
prices for highly abundant substances or have my house broken
into by an over zealous SWAT team that was off by a digit on
the address of a crack house). But, in fact, the chances of
those side effects are fairly low. I really object because
conflict prevents the functional operation of the control
systems involved; neither party (drug warrior and drug taker) is
able to function as a full fledged hierarchical perceptual
control system.

The conflict would be solved, of course, if the druggies decided
to stop taking drugs OR the warriors decided to stop fighting
drug takers (and suppliers). Either approach would end the conflict
and people could start functioning again. I favor a solution to this
conflict based on the drug warriors changing because they are the
ones who created the conflict by trying to control other control
systems. The other control systems (druggies) maintain the conflict
by maintaining their references for the perception that the drug
warriors want them to change. But, somehow (and it's hard for
me to articulate it without becoming moralistic) it seems to me
that its a lot easier for the drug warriors to stop controlling
for what the druggies are controlling than it is for the druggies
to change their own reference for what they are controlling. I don't
know how to articulate this point in terms of the model -- but it
seems to me that expecting the druggies to solve the conflict by
changing their reference for drugs is like expecting jews to
solve their conflict with nazis by changing their reference for
how alive they want to be (like, to zero).

Best regards

Rick

     **************************************************************

Richard S. Marken                   USMail: 10459 Holman Ave
The Aerospace Corporation                   Los Angeles, CA 90024
E-mail: marken@aero.org
(310) 336-6214 (day)
(310) 474-0313 (evening)
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU