Amazing!

[Kenneth_Kitzke_Value]

[From Kenny Kitzke (2003.05.27.0918 EDT)]

<Bill Powers (2003.05.21.1418 MDT)>

Bill, I’m just back from a week of R&R–without the laptop. Among the pile of unread E-mail was this amazing post of yours. Amazing because it seems to be a major step in resolving one of my major perceptions concerning the “incompleteness” of HPCT.

I have spoken about this perception of mine both at the Conference and a few times on the CSGNet. But, seemingly, never in a very convincing way and certainly never with empirical evidence. I could only observe that your conception of the highest levels of perception, and especially the role of your proposed “reorganization” system and how it operates, simply does not adequately explain my own life experience.

<Does this fit with anyone else’s experiences?>

Bingo!

<There are three situations in which

large errors can occur:

1. A large disturbance in the environment can overwhelm control, or

threaten to do so. Large errors are experienced (though not, I currently

think, directly).

2. A conflict can prevent effective action, and lead to escalating internal

efforts that nullify each other and accomplish nothing to correct errors.

3. A reference signal can be set to a value much different from its current

setting.

The first two are likely to be associated with negative emotions. The first

would lead to perceiving the external event as the cause of the emotion.

The second would probably result in attributing the emotion to one’s own

inability to act.>

Number 3 is in technical terms the crux of why your view never satisfied me about my own behavior and nature. I always felt that high-level reference perceptual variables could be set for oneself without any “reorganization system” being called into play to resolve otherwise unresolvable error in the control systems hierarchy. Especially disturbing to me was the notion that such high level (perhaps the highest level in humans) references were established as a result of some random, trial and error process to reduce error in currently established “system level” reference variables.

<The third one is the new one to me. If one suddenly sets a high reference

signal for something, I would take that to mean that something is being

actively sought, some experience one wants more of. This creates a sudden

error signal not because something has disturbed a perception but because

the reference signal has suddenly changed. The error signal is

self-generated. The positive direction of change implies that the emotion

would be felt not only as self-generated, but as joyful or at least

positive. So here is a plausible way of fitting at least some positive

emotions into this picture.>

I fully agree with the concept of self-generating a reference variable and level for something human beings want to experience with all their might, being and spirit. For an example (one probably not personal to you or me), to “walk on the moon.” Setting by imagination such a high(est) level personal goal can easily change the reference perceptions for all the relevant lower levels such as system and belief perceptions. And, this will impact in a major way what you do with your time year by year, even second by second.

What still confuses me is your emphasis on “suddenly” above. Why does the reference or the error have to occur suddenly? I am not saying it could not happen suddenly, just that it is not a necessary condition. If I fall out of a boat and can’t swim and almost drown, I may suddenly while struggling for a breath set a reference for learning to swim (I think that is a system level perception) and fits more with the reorganization scenario.

I have been comfortable with your speculation that the high level references tend to change infrequently, some over years, decades or even a lifetime. I think the process of self-setting a personal goal like “walking on the moon” can build slowly over time. Perhaps lower level references are not modified until there is a true, deep-felt conviction, to that goal, rather than just an imagined “dream” of what might become true and become pleasurable (as through experienced emotions).

If a self-goal has no specific time deadline, it is difficult for me to understand how anything like sudden error can occur even at the lower levels where large errors could be experienced. Let’s say that NASA offers two spots for civilians on a future moon landing. And, you must have your application in by June 15 to be considered. Now I could see where the self-generated, personal goal or reference variable of “walking on the moon” could result in generating a large error if you perceive missing the submittal deadline. Perhaps you have a sudden large error when you open your reply letter informing you that you were #3 on the list!

<To make the error signal go away, all one has to do

is set the reference signal back where it was.>

I like this too. One could commit suicide for missing this opportunity of a lifetime. Or, one could reset their reference in time with the belief perception “maybe next time.”

<Reading Damasio’s “Looking for Spinoza” (about feeling and emotion), I had

a thought, inspired by I know not what.>

Well, I could speculate about the source of such inspirations, but won’t. However, while new thoughts are crossing your conscious mind by whatever inspiration source, have you thought about how such “thought thru” new reference variables could come about? How does your conception of HPCT change if this is a new idea to you?

[Bill_Powers]

[From Bill Powers (2003.05.28.1319 MDT)]

Kenny Kitzke (2003.05.27.0918 EDT)--

Number 3 is in technical terms the crux of why your view never satisfied me
about my own behavior and nature. I always felt that high-level reference
perceptual variables could be set for oneself without any "reorganization
system" being called into play to resolve otherwise unresolvable error in
the control systems hierarchy. Especially disturbing to me was the notion
that such high level (perhaps the highest level in humans) references were
established as a result of some random, trial and error process to reduce
error in currently established "system level" reference variables.

Why would that bother you? Not that I want to propose that reorganization
is the only way for setting or modifying highest-level reference signals,
but it seems to me that we have to be ready to accept whatever hypothesis
we can support with data. I certainly can't rule out random reorganization
as ONE way such reference levels can be set. That doesn't seem unacceptable
to me. Should it?

>I fully agree with the concept of self-generating a reference variable
and level for something human beings want to >experience with all their
might, being and spirit.

I take that to mean "without inner conflict." I can see that if one totally
revised an existing system concept, or established one where no completely
formed system concept had existed before, there would be no internal
conflict and no sense of holding back.

> For an example (one probably not personal to you or me), to "walk on the
moon." Setting by imagination such a >high(est) level personal goal can
easily change the reference perceptions for all the relevant lower levels
such as system >and belief perceptions. And, this will impact in a major
way what you do with your time year by year, even second by >second.

>What still confuses me is your emphasis on "suddenly" above. Why does
the reference or the error have to occur >suddenly? I am not saying it
could not happen suddenly, just that it is not a necessary condition. If I
fall out of a boat
>and can't swim and almost drown, I may suddenly while struggling for a
breath set a reference for learning to swim
>(think that is a system level perception) and fits more with the
reorganization scenario.

>I have been comfortable with your speculation that the high level
references tend to change infrequently, some over >years, decades or even a
lifetime. I think the process of self-setting a personal goal like
"walking on the moon" can build >slowly over time. Perhaps lower level
references are not modified until there is a true, deep-felt conviction, to
that goal, >rather than just an imagined "dream" of what might become true
and become pleasurable (as through experienced >emotions).

It seems to me that one can build up a system concept by reading, thinking,
meditating, and conversing with others; this is like building up in
imagination a more and more complex set of perceptions, perhaps at several
levels, filling in details and correcting inconsistencies. But building up
the imagined perception is only the first step. At some point one has to do
something to establish a reference signal saying, like Captain Picard,
"Make it so!" Now this picture in imagination/memory becomes an active
reference condition, and real-time perceptions are compared with it,
differences being converted to lower-level reference signals. I think that
the immediate result is to create a lot of new error signals that one has
to learn to deal with, as old principles and programs are reorganized to
fit into the new system concept. I think you will probably agree with that.

If a self-goal has no specific time deadline, it is difficult for me to
understand how anything like sudden error can occur even at the lower
levels where large errors could be experienced.

The suddenness I'm thinking of isn't in formation of the new reference
perception, but in somehow deciding to put it into effect. There is a
moment of decision, isn't there? Previous to that moment the chosen
reference condition was still hypothetical and produced no actions, but
after it errors are converted into actions.

All this suggests a role of awareness and volition in this "decision" or
"make-it-so" process, aside from the normal automatic operation of the
hierarchy.

>Well, I could speculate about the source of such inspirations, but
won't. However, while new thoughts are crossing >your conscious mind
by whatever inspiration source, have you thought about how such "thought
thru" new reference >variables could come about? How does your conception
of HPCT change if this is a new idea to you?

It's been part of my understanding since the beginning. If you look in the
Powers, Clark, and MacFarland papers from 1960, you'll see mention of
volition as the capacity to initiate changes experimentally, for no logical
reason and for no cause that can be found in the hierarchy.

I know the point you're making, and I don't disagree with you about the
observations and experiences involved. All I disagree with is your
theoretical explanation of those observations and experiences.

Best,

Bill P.

[Bruce_Gregory4]

[From Bruce Gregory (2003.0529.0535)]

Bill Powers (2003.05.28.1319 MDT)

It's been part of my understanding since the beginning. If you look in the
Powers, Clark, and MacFarland papers from 1960, you'll see mention of
volition as the capacity to initiate changes experimentally, for no logical
reason and for no cause that can be found in the hierarchy.

It is not obvious to me why it is necessary or desirable to go beyond
the HPCT model in which lower level references are set by higher level
control systems and the highest level references are set by reorganization.

···

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

www.joincanadanow.org

[Kenneth_Kitzke_Value]

[From Kenny Kitzke (2003.05.29.0919 EDT)]

<Bill Powers (2003.05.28.1319 MDT)>

Especially disturbing to me was the notion

that such high level (perhaps the highest level in humans) references were

established as a result of some random, trial and error process to reduce

error in currently established “system level” reference variables.

<Why would that bother you?>

Because HPCT, as you have constructed it, did not satisfactorily explain my own experience with my behavior, and I wish it did.

<Not that I want to propose that reorganization is the only way for setting or modifying highest-level reference signals, but it seems to me that we have to be ready to accept whatever hypothesis we can support with data.>

Well, correct me if I am wrong, but didn’t B:CP offer ONLY reorganization as an explanation for how reference perceptions get set at the “systems” level?

<I certainly can’t rule out random reorganization as ONE way such reference levels can be set. That doesn’t seem unacceptable to me. Should it?>

No, and nor can I rule it out, or something like it. And, I admitted that in my post. But, it seems to me if you are acknowledging there are other ways, that this is a new tune for you, and at least to my awareness, an important and necessary one to have credibility with other “psychologists” IMHO.

I fully agree with the concept of self-generating a reference variable

and level for something human beings want to experience with all their

might, being and spirit.

<I take that to mean “without inner conflict.” I can see that if one totally

revised an existing system concept, or established one where no completely

formed system concept had existed before, there would be no internal

conflict and no sense of holding back.>

Exactly, no inner conflict at the system (or in my view, a higher level of self-desire). But, with that newly set high reference variable, conflict or error may very well develop at lower levels. It would be that error that drives the actions to perceive the new high-level reference.

<It seems to me that one can build up a system concept by reading, thinking,

meditating, and conversing with others; this is like building up in

imagination a more and more complex set of perceptions, perhaps at several

levels, filling in details and correcting inconsistencies. But building up

the imagined perception is only the first step. At some point one has to do

something to establish a reference signal saying, like Captain Picard,

“Make it so!” Now this picture in imagination/memory becomes an active

reference condition, and real-time perceptions are compared with it,

differences being converted to lower-level reference signals. I think that

the immediate result is to create a lot of new error signals that one has

to learn to deal with, as old principles and programs are reorganized to

fit into the new system concept. I think you will probably agree with that.

Wow, I agree and it is so well said. I hope you will be pleased to know that I will practically quote you whenever I teach or explore HPCT with others? The words reveal your deep understanding of your theory, that many of us will never quite command. I guess that is consistent with a systems level concept of a great teacher.

<The suddenness I’m thinking of isn’t in formation of the new reference

perception, but in somehow deciding to put it into effect. There is a

moment of decision, isn’t there? Previous to that moment the chosen

reference condition was still hypothetical and produced no actions, but

after it errors are converted into actions.

All this suggests a role of awareness and volition in this “decision” or

“make-it-so” process, aside from the normal automatic operation of the

hierarchy.>

I think I understand your context now and find it plausible. In Boston, we touched on a shared belief that there is something above, or at least outside, the hierarchy, that shapes it. I feel certain we have a different conception of that “system” is and how it operates, but that is for us or others to demonstrate convincingly with experiments and models.

<It’s been part of my understanding since the beginning. If you look in the

Powers, Clark, and MacFarland papers from 1960, you’ll see mention of

volition as the capacity to initiate changes experimentally, for no logical

reason and for no cause that can be found in the hierarchy.>

But, this is not the scenario you revealed as new to you, is it? Setting a new reference by yourself without error from the environmental input is done with cause, with logic, to experience certain emotions or perceptions about oneself.

<I know the point you’re making, and I don’t disagree with you about the

observations and experiences involved. All I disagree with is your

theoretical explanation of those observations and experiences.>

I can live with that and, at least for me, the agreement is progress Bill and comforting. The disagreement is yet to be resolved as to just how what we agree happens happens. For sure, I like my concept better than yours and probably vice-versa. It is a wonderful to be able to agree to disagree without impunity. Thanks, and all the best to you teacher.

[Richard_Marken2]

[From Rick Marken (2003.05.29.1115)]

Kenny Kitzke (2003.05.29.0919
EDT)–
Bill Powers (2003.05.28.1319 MDT)

Especially disturbing to me was the
notion

that such high level (perhaps the
highest level in humans) references were

established as a result of some random,
trial and error process to reduce

error in currently established “system
level” reference variables.

<Why would that bother you?>

Because HPCT, as you have constructed
it, did not satisfactorily explain my own experience with my behavior,
and I wish it did.

I think the question is whether random reorganization satisfactorily explains
the aspects of behavior it aims to explain. It certainly seems to explain
the results of the Robertson and Glines learning study to which I referred
you. It also seem to explain many everyday control situations where
the only way to achieve control is by randomly selecting from among a set
of alternative actions. For example, manually tuning a radio requires turning
the dial in one of two directions direction at first, but you can’t know
whether tuning will be improved by clockwise or counter clockwise rotation
of the dial. You try a turning action, see if the perception of tune
moves toward the goal state and, if it doesn’t, try the opposite direction.
This is the kind of randomness postulated by reorganization. When there
are many possible equally plausible ways to achieve control, you have to
select one and try it. Even when there is some heuristic that can be used
as the basis of selection, selections based on such heuristics can still
be wrong. Heuristics, at best, bias the probability distribution over options
toward making selection of the right option more probable. But it’s still
a random process. This kind of randomness, like tuning a radio or pushing
on a door to open it, is certainly a part of my everyday experience. I’d
be surprised if it weren’t part of yours, too.
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

[Bill_Powers]

Hello, Kenny --

I think we understand each other. Thanks for the friendly post and the
understanding.

Best,

Bill P.

[Richard_Marken2]

[From Rick Marken (2003.05.30.0910)]

Bill Powers (2003.05.30.0752 MDT)--

I know about the "Ghost in the Machine," Koestler and all that, but that is
mainly an argument against religion and mysticism. ...

Perceptions, goals, thoughts, and so on are things we can observe happening
inside us, or at least in that part of experience we call "inside." But
what is it that observes thoughts as they take place, perceptions as they
come and go, and the rest of "so on?" What is the Observer?

The ghost outside the machine?

What's always brought be to the brink of insanity is thinking about what it is
that observes the Observer. Is it the Observer itself that makes us aware of it's
existence. Or is there something even farther outside (in us) that can be
conscious of consciousness itself. Perhaps that's why this ghost (the Observer
that is me) is so emphatically focused on the nature of the motorcycle ...er...
machine.

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

[Bruce_Gregory4]

[From Bruce Gregory (2003.0530.0945)]

Amazing is hardly the word for it. Stupifying seems to capture this exchange
more accurately. The ghost is back and in charge of the machine! Who would
have thunk it! Let me then stake out a new territory. It's the "old" HPCT, but
without mysterious agents that set reference levels based on spiritual or
intellectual insights. Nobody here but us neurons....

[Bill_Powers]

[From Bill Powers (2003.05.30.0752 MDT)]

Bruce Gregory (2003.0530.0945)--

I just sent a private reply which you may wish to share with CSGnet.

Amazing is hardly the word for it. Stupifying seems to capture this exchange
more accurately. The ghost is back and in charge of the machine! Who would
have thunk it! Let me then stake out a new territory. It's the "old" HPCT, but
without mysterious agents that set reference levels based on spiritual or
intellectual insights. Nobody here but us neurons....

I am not, as Kenny Kitzke will attest, much impressed by blind faith in
anything.My view is that in science, experience comes first; that's why we
experiment rather than just reasoning things out from Universal Principles,
as the Greeks used to do. "Nobody here but us neurons" is an unprovable
Universal Principle and I see no reason at all to assume it's true. Or
false. It's just one of those statements you can make in the English
language and then forget until we find some reason to believe or disbelieve it.

I know about the "Ghost in the Machine," Koestler and all that, but that is
mainly an argument against religion and mysticism. I generally join in such
criticisms because to me religion and mysticism offer completely
unbelievable explanations of certain interesting phenomena. It's the
explanations I object to, not the phenomena. If someone says "I see purple
spots all over your living-room walls," I would normally accept that as a
true statement and (sometimes) try to think of an explanation for it. Of
course I would not accept as true the statement "THERE ARE purple spots all
over your living-room walls." I normally assume that you report honestly
what you see, but I don't automatically assume that what you see is coming
to you from outside your skin. If I've been taking flash pictures of you
from a number of angles, I think I could explain the purple spots fairly
easily, though I wouldn't expect to see them, too.

In the method of levels, many people come to recognize something they
agree, or spontaneously suggest, can be called "The Observer." The Observer
observes, but is not part of that which is observed. This is easy to
establish because observation continues while the objects of observation
change. The relationship of the Observer to the hierarchy of acquired
control systems is puzzling, because it seems that one can just as easily
observe the pain from a stubbed toe as the sense of humor in The Twittering
Machine, or the thought "That picture is called 'The Twittering Machine',
or, to make the point plain, "That picture is NOT called 'The Twittering
Machine' (while looking at the Klee picture of that name). It is as though
the Observer can receive perceptual information from any level of the
hierarchy (though not, in my experience, all levels at one time), and from
more than one control system at a given level.(though not all of them at
the same time). Moreover, the region, or volume, of accessible perceptions
can change. That is the basis for the method of levels.

Decartes' Error, as Damasio calls it, was to conclude that mind and body
were different things. But even Damasio, in this enlightened age, is pretty
fuzzy about what he means by "mind". Of course perceptions, goals,
thoughts, and so on are probably activities in the neuronal brain, patterns
of firing, so I have no problem with that: thinking, wanting, perceiving,
reasoning -- those are all part of the physical organism. That is the
bathwater, and we can throw it back into the Body. But where did the baby go?

Perceptions, goals, thoughts, and so on are things we can observe happening
inside us, or at least in that part of experience we call "inside." But
what is it that observes thoughts as they take place, perceptions as they
come and go, and the rest of "so on?" What is the Observer?

That, I think, is a basic question that people have pondered at least as
long as they have been recording their history. There is little debate
about the phenomenon. We are aware, we are conscious, and that makes us
very different from rocks and raindrops. I am me and you are you, and each
of us stands at the center of the universe. I know of things happening in
me that you cannot know.

But theories about the nature of the Observer have been pretty free-form.
In the West some people call it the Soul; in the Far East, the Atman,
maybe. I just call it the Observer, but my bet is that we're all talking
about the same fact: we Observe. My take on the nature of what we observe
is that it's all perception: signals in afferent neural pathways in the
brain. Different levels of perception that represent some unobservable
external reality in terms of human perceptual abstractions built one level
on another.

About volition I know less, because it's not a perception. It's evident in
changes of reference signal, and maybe other parts of the organization,
that arise without apparent reason. The experimental nature of volition is
clear; I want to try something new, and do so. If I like the result, I file
it for future reference. If not, I forget about it. Who's the "I"? Not my
name, size, personality, habits, thoughts, perceptions, education, social
position, and so on. I am, behind all these things, the Observer who
observes them.

I don't believe in ghosts. But I Observe.

Best,

Bill P.

[Bruce_Gregory4]

[From Bruce Gregory (2003.0530.1238)]

Bill Powers (2003.05.30.0752 MDT)

I am not, as Kenny Kitzke will attest, much impressed by blind faith in
anything.My view is that in science, experience comes first; that's why we
experiment rather than just reasoning things out from Universal Principles,
as the Greeks used to do. "Nobody here but us neurons" is an unprovable
Universal Principle and I see no reason at all to assume it's true. Or
false. It's just one of those statements you can make in the English
language and then forget until we find some reason to believe or
disbelieve it.

Occam's razor is the reason I adopt it.

In the method of levels, many people come to recognize something they
agree, or spontaneously suggest, can be called "The Observer." The Observer
observes, but is not part of that which is observed.

By analogy with vision, smell, taste, and touch, I find is perfectly
reasonable. I look out thewindow of my office, but am not part of what I see.
What you call 'the Observer' I call awareness. It does not prove to be
productive to ask, "Who is aware?" (Buddha discoursed on this topic at some
length. I find his observations similar to my own.)

This is easy to
establish because observation continues while the objects of observation
change. The relationship of the Observer to the hierarchy of acquired
control systems is puzzling, because it seems that one can just as easily
observe the pain from a stubbed toe as the sense of humor in The Twittering
Machine, or the thought "That picture is called 'The Twittering Machine',
or, to make the point plain, "That picture is NOT called 'The Twittering
Machine' (while looking at the Klee picture of that name). It is as though
the Observer can receive perceptual information from any level of the
hierarchy (though not, in my experience, all levels at one time), and from
more than one control system at a given level.(though not all of them at
the same time). Moreover, the region, or volume, of accessible perceptions
can change. That is the basis for the method of levels.

One conjecture that seems reasonable to me is that awareness is associated
with relatively intense neural activity. When external input is minimized we
become increasingly aware of internal states.

Perceptions, goals, thoughts, and so on are things we can observe happening
inside us, or at least in that part of experience we call "inside." But
what is it that observes thoughts as they take place, perceptions as they
come and go, and the rest of "so on?" What is the Observer?

Or what is awareness? Is your awareness different from mine? We are not aware
of each other's neural activity, but is that significant?

That, I think, is a basic question that people have pondered at least as
long as they have been recording their history. There is little debate
about the phenomenon. We are aware, we are conscious, and that makes us
very different from rocks and raindrops. I am me and you are you, and each
of us stands at the center of the universe. I know of things happening in
me that you cannot know.

Indeed, but is that significant? We each see a different scene when we look
out our respective windows. Is that mysterious? Profound?

But theories about the nature of the Observer have been pretty free-form.
In the West some people call it the Soul; in the Far East, the Atman,
maybe. I just call it the Observer, but my bet is that we're all talking
about the same fact: we Observe. My take on the nature of what we observe
is that it's all perception: signals in afferent neural pathways in the
brain. Different levels of perception that represent some unobservable
external reality in terms of human perceptual abstractions built one level
on another.

Yup, we agree on that.

About volition I know less, because it's not a perception. It's evident in
changes of reference signal, and maybe other parts of the organization,
that arise without apparent reason. The experimental nature of volition is
clear; I want to try something new, and do so. If I like the result, I file
it for future reference. If not, I forget about it. Who's the "I"? Not my
name, size, personality, habits, thoughts, perceptions, education, social
position, and so on. I am, behind all these things, the Observer who
observes them.

Perhaps, as Buddha maintained, awareness is real but the "I" is an illusion.

···

I don't believe in ghosts. But I Observe.

[Philip_Runkel]

Phil Runkel on 30 May 03 replying to Bill Powers's of same date on the
Observer:

Thanks for your little essay on the Observer. Maybe I'm catching on.
I've read maybe a half dozen other utterances of yours on this topic,
and I came away from this one with more of a feeling of having something
I could chew on. I'll read it again tomorrow. ���Phil R.

[Bill_Powers]

[From Bill Powers (2003.05.31.0801 MDT)]

Bruce Gregory (2003.0530.1238)--

>"Nobody here but us neurons" is an unprovable
>Universal Principle

Occam's razor is the reason I adopt it.

Experience is the reason I don't. I understand the problem though -- Bruce
Nevin, in his long and rather beautiful post expressed it, too: that which
is aware is not aware of itself; only a kind of echo of having been aware
is present. And I will add that this echo is in the hierarchy, not in the
Observer. The Observer does not think "I observe" because it does not
think, period. Rather, through experiences involving the Observer, the
hierarchy learns to say, "There is an Observer, and here is how it behaves."

As to the Observer adopting a point of view in the hierarchy, that is not,
of course, part of HPCT or PCT. It's a proposition used to explain how it
is that the world can take on an appearance reflecting just one level or
part of the hierarchy. You can, for example, examine all the relationships
in your environment (an infinite number, so you will never finish). While
doing that, the world looks to consciousness as if it were composed
primarily of relationships. Then you can look at configurations, or
sequences, or intensities -- and the world of conscious experience will
change accordingly. These are not predictions from PCT, but empirical
observations. There is nothing in PCT that can explain this phenomenon of
consciousness -- the phenomenon of attending selectively to different
aspects of levels of the perceptual signals described in the model.

>Perhaps, as Buddha maintained, awareness is real but the "I" is an illusion.

What you call awareness I call observing. The "I" is not an illusion; I
maintains that it is real, but it is an aspect of the learned hierarchy of
perception. It is not just the Observer, but a combination of the Observer
and observations of self-characteristics, which are characteristics of the
learned hierarchy. When the Observer is not observiong these
self-characteristics but some other perceptions, there is no "I" in
consciousness.

To me, the critical feature of PCT in this whole discussion is the fact
that control systems can work both in and out of awareness. When control is
going on, perceptual signals have to be present, along with the rest of the
control systems. I think it's clear that a great many control systems can
operate when not in awareness, which shows that awareness and perceptual
signals are not the same thing. In fact I don't know of any other way one
could prove that.

I don't think this consideration could have entered into any of the
classical and ancient discussions of perception and awareness, though I
have seen hints in the literature that this distinction was at least
suspected. It's interesting that we can apparently use properties of the
hierarchy to deduce proposed truths about things that do not belong within
the hierarchy.

I think I've squeezed all the juice I can get out of this subject, at least
for now.

Best,

Bill P.

···

I don't believe in ghosts. But I Observe.

[Richard_Marken2]

[From Rick Marken (2003.05.31.0930)]

Bill Powers (2003.05.31.0801 MDT)--

The Observer does not think "I observe" because it does not
think, period. Rather, through experiences involving the Observer, the
hierarchy learns to say, "There is an Observer, and here is how it behaves."

Thanks. This helps answer my question about what observers the Observer. Very
nice idea! It's just a start but I think it points in the right direction.

As to the Observer adopting a point of view in the hierarchy, that is not,
of course, part of HPCT or PCT. It's a proposition used to explain how it
is that the world can take on an appearance reflecting just one level or
part of the hierarchy.

Right. That's what it seems like to me.

You can, for example, examine all the relationships
in your environment (an infinite number, so you will never finish). While
doing that, the world looks to consciousness as if it were composed
primarily of relationships.

Yes. That was my point about seeing the text on the screen only in terms of
configurations. Again, your description is consistent with my own experience.

To me, the critical feature of PCT in this whole discussion is the fact
that control systems can work both in and out of awareness.

Yes. This distinction between "purpose" and "consciousness" is nearly always
confounded in conventional discussions of intentionality. That is, purpose is
usually discussed as though it referred only to a consciousness phenomenon: the
purposes of which we are aware. PCT shows that purpose and consciousness are two
separate phenomena. Systems are purposeful whether they are conscious of their
purposes or not. PCT explains purpose but it does not (yet) explain
consciousness. But at least it shows that there are two separate phenomena to be
explained, which is, I think, a huge step forward in terms of our understanding
of human nature.

I think I've squeezed all the juice I can get out of this subject, at least
for now.

Good squeezing.

Best regards

Rick

···

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

[Bruce_Gregory4]

[From

[From Bruce Gregory 92003.0531.1521)]

Rick Marken (2003.05.31.0930)]

Bill Powers (2003.05.31.0801 MDT)--

As to the Observer adopting a point of view in the hierarchy, that is not,
of course, part of HPCT or PCT. It's a proposition used to explain how it
is that the world can take on an appearance reflecting just one level or
part of the hierarchy.

Right. That's what it seems like to me.

I cannot tell if our perceptions are organized differently or we simply
have different models. I _never_ perceive the world as composed
primarily of relationships. I perceive relationships, but _never_ to the
exclusion of objects and configurations. This may be why we seem to talk
past each other. We may truly live in different worlds.

···

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

www.joincanadanow.org

[Bill_Powers]

[From Bill Powers (2003.05.31.1605 MDT)]

Bruce Gregory 92003.0531.1521)--

I cannot tell if our perceptions are organized differently or we simply
have different models. I _never_ perceive the world as composed
primarily of relationships. I perceive relationships, but _never_ to the
exclusion of objects and configurations. This may be why we seem to talk
past each other. We may truly live in different worlds.

Try it. Pay attention to examples of all the spatial relationships you can
see around you, all the relationships involving greater and smaller,
brighter and dimmer, inside and outside, parallel and antiparallel,
symmetrical and assymetrical, and so on -- all of them that you can think
of. After you do this a while, other types of perceptions may take a back
seat, as it were.

I think you can do the same thing with any other level of perception.

But who knows? Maybe this is a difference between people.

Best,

Bill P.

[Richard_Marken2]

[From Rick Marken (2003.05.31.1710)]

Bruce Gregory 92003.0531.1521)--

Rick Marken (2003.05.31.0930)]

>>Bill Powers (2003.05.31.0801 MDT)--
>
>>As to the Observer adopting a point of view in the hierarchy, that is not,
>>of course, part of HPCT or PCT. It's a proposition used to explain how it
>>is that the world can take on an appearance reflecting just one level or
>>part of the hierarchy.
>
> Right. That's what it seems like to me.

I cannot tell if our perceptions are organized differently or we simply
have different models. I _never_ perceive the world as composed
primarily of relationships. I perceive relationships, but _never_ to the
exclusion of objects and configurations. This may be why we seem to talk
past each other. We may truly live in different worlds.

I don't think so. I'm pretty sure that we live in the same perceptual world --
of sensations, configurations, perceptions, sequences, events, relationships,
etc. They're all there, all the time. We differ, I believe, is our ability to
systematically attend to these different types of perception. In order to
experience the "point of view" phenomenon Bill was talking about in the quote
above, one has to learn to attend to one _type_ of perception at a time. This
is not easy to do; it takes some practice. And even with practice I can't focus
on one type of perception for long. But I think you'll find that, when you are
able to attend to only one _type_ of perception, even if only briefly, other
_types_ of perception are not there, or are in the background, at least for the
moment.

I've found that learning to attend to different types of perceptions helped me
understand what the hierarchy of perception is about. We are experiencing all
types of perceptions all the time, of course. But it is very interesting to
learn to attend to different types (and, thus, different levels) of perception
to see what these different types of perception are like.

Best

Rick

···

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

[Bruce_Gregory4]

[From Bruce Gregory (2003.0601.1155)]

Bill Powers (2003.05.31.1605 MDT)

Try it. Pay attention to examples of all the spatial relationships you can
see around you, all the relationships involving greater and smaller,
brighter and dimmer, inside and outside, parallel and antiparallel,
symmetrical and assymetrical, and so on -- all of them that you can think
of. After you do this a while, other types of perceptions may take a back
seat, as it were.

O.K. This seems to me to be the familiar fact that when the gain is
increased on one control circuit, other circuits are inhibited. I think
we call this phenomenon 'attention.'

···

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

www.joincanadanow.org

[Bill_Powers]

[From Bill Powers (2003.06.01.1051 MDT)]

Bruce Gregory (2003.0601.1155)--

O.K. This seems to me to be the familiar fact that when the gain is
increased on one control circuit, other circuits are inhibited. I think
we call this phenomenon 'attention.'

I'm not familiar with that fact. Where does it come from?

Best,

Bill P.

[Bruce_Gregory4]

[From Bruce Gregory (2003.0601.1440)]

Bill Powers (2003.06.01.1051 MDT)

Bruce Gregory (2003.0601.1155)--

O.K. This seems to me to be the familiar fact that when the gain is
increased on one control circuit, other circuits are inhibited. I think
we call this phenomenon 'attention.'

I'm not familiar with that fact. Where does it come from?

Observation. When I concentrate on one thing I cease attempting to
achieve competing objectives. The simplest explanation is inhibition of
those objectives. The gain appears to increase wherever attention goes,
but it may be that attention emerges wherever gain is highest.

···

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

www.joincanadanow.org

[Richard_Marken2]

[From Rick Marken (2003.06.01.2220)]

Bruce Gregory (2003.0601.1440)--

Bill Powers (2003.06.01.1051 MDT)

>Bruce Gregory (2003.0601.1155)--

O.K. This seems to me to be the familiar fact that when the gain is
increased on one control circuit, other circuits are inhibited. I

think

we call this phenomenon 'attention.'

I'm not familiar with that fact. Where does it come from?

Observation. When I concentrate on one thing I cease attempting to
achieve competing objectives.

This does not seem to me to be the phenomenon of "point of view" that we
been discussing.

The simplest explanation is inhibition of
those objectives. The gain appears to increase wherever attention

goes,

but it may be that attention emerges wherever gain is highest.

This does not seem to me to be a PCT explanation of the phenomenon you
describe.

Best regards

Rick

···

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