[From Bruce Buchanan (940907.20:10 EDT)]
Some recent discussion leads me to make "a modest suggestion", which I must
preface with some background. In various GSG publications the thesis of PCT
has been stated in the form that, "to an organism, the environment exists
_only_ as perceptions", and that "organisms act to control their own
perceptions". Bill Powers, Tom Bourbon and Rick Marken have all, I think,
stated the PCT thesis in this "strong" form. And this form of statement
may provide the kind of challenge needed for students and others to really
think through the meaning of PCT. On the other hand, some recent
discussion suggests this might be open to discussion . . .
Bill Powers (940905.0830 MDT) writes:
Basically perceptual signals are the world as we experience it. When we
act on the world (or our relationship to it) we alter the physical
world, and hence the perceptual signals that represent it.
Martin Taylor 940906 18:00 -
In one sense, . . .the control system has no
access to the world except through its perceptual signals. But in another
sense, the world can "blindside" you; and the problem that presents to the
organism is to survive. That, surely is THE problem, from which the problem
of controlling perceptions derives. One must survive in order to control
perceptions, and one must control perceptions in order to survive.
But attempts to control perceptions are not enough, because you can be killed
by things you don't perceive at all . . .
Avery Andrews 940907.1632 -
In general, it seems to me that what we perceive is mostly there, and
there as we perceive it - it's just that an infinite amount of stuff
is left out - an infinite amount that we can find out more about by
means scientific instrumentation, and maybe even more that is in
principle hidden from us. . . .
So the suggestion is offered (without much obvious humility) as follows:
In view of the fact that what we perceive is a function of the world as
well as of the perceptual apparatus, perhaps behavior may alternatively
and reasonably be described as Control of _What We Perceive_.
_What We Perceive_ is undeniably a function of the perceiver, but it is not
_only_ that. It is also a function of what is perceived, and it may both
clarify understanding and and facilitate wider acceptance of PCT to
acknowledge that fact.
Others may have had similar thoughts and perhaps made statements to similar
effect. There does seem to be recognition that control systems cannot be
adequately conceived as systems in isolation.
I am not unaware of the subtlety and complexity of the questions involved.
An immense philosophical and psychological literature has been concerned
with such issues. According to Mortimer Adler (in "Ten Philosophical
Mistakes"), Locke and Hume greatly sidetracked realistic understanding in
holding the false notion that perceptions (and words and ideas) refer only
to mental representations, i.e. are essentially subjective. But our
perceptions cannot be only of mental representations, or of our own ideas
per se. Perceptions cannot be entirely subjective. They must involve
objects, which may be various kinds. To most perceptual objects we ascribe
existence - as concrete physical objects or validated conceptual
entities/theories, etc. - although we can also understand memories,
imagined or fictional objects, etc.
The notion that our direct experience is _only_ of our own internal mental
representations has led to many apparent mysteries: e.g. how we can know
or prove the existence of the external world, etc. However, the fact is
that when we consider and talk about percepts or concepts, etc., we usually
trust that we are talking about things in the Real World Out There - to our
peril if we are much mistaken.
As Avery Andrews put it (in the same post as quoted above):
The point is basically that if we aren't confident about the truth of basic
psychophysics, we're not going to be right about anything.
To believe otherwise is to try to live in two worlds with no bridge between
them. According to Adler, Locke and Descartes both made this mistake, with
which the modern world is still living.
Part of the problem which leads to this mistake also involves a failure to
recognize the distinction between two very different aspects or categories
of experience both described as Perception. We include
(1) perceptions which for each of us in daily life are the subjective
phenomena which we experience directly, as in sensory impressions,
unverbalized awarenesss of objects, of other persons and their feelings,
etc. etc.; and
(2) perceptions which we objectify and ascribe to an external world, which
we mostly conceptualize as we have learned to do through science, but also
other dimensions of language/literature and culture.
Working perceptions include both. Perceptions as direct experiences relate
us to the world. We use words to refer to both direct experience, as well
as to the percepts and theoretical constructs derived from direct
experience, without always being aware that there is a difference. For
Locke, words signified only the mental representations. Such a view is not
adequate, however, for the basic and consensually valid or public meanings
of language refer to things that exist for us all in our common world - the
Reality Out There, whatever it is - that we experience directly.
This account of mine, of course, is based upon my own (fallible)
understanding. It may be too highly condensed and summarized here to be
understood by anyone not already somewhat familiar with the issues at
stake. In any case, the foregoing considerations are intended to present my
rationale for the suggestion that (to repeat):
In view of the fact that what we perceive is a function of the world as well
as of the perceptual apparatus, perhaps behavior may reasonably be described
as Control of _What We Perceive_.
What We Perceive is undeniably a function of the perceiver, but it is not
_only_ that. It is also a function of what is perceived, and it may both
clarify and facilitate understanding of PCT to acknowledge that fact.
This is no doubt a point that has been thoroughly discussed in the past,
and I would be glad of any specific reference if available. It may well be
that I have a basic misunderstanding of PCT and epistemology. If this is
so, a discussion of the above suggestion will undoubtedly help to set me
straight!
Cheers!
Bruce B.