[From Jeff Hunter (930617)]
[re Bill Powers (930616.0900 MDT)]
I say that there is absolutely no evidence for
collective perceptions, collective reference signals, collective
error signals, or collective mechanisms for action. I go along
with Tom Bourbon and Rick Marken: what's your evidence?
Well here's an example of a collective reference signal
for you. If a number of women are confined together their
menstrual cycles will synchronize. This does not require the
conscious knowledge of the women, it seems to happen just by
pheromones.
This is pretty remarkable since individual women have
different cycle lengths (I'm avoiding the word "periods" :-),
and some even have highly irregular cycles. Thus the homonal
reference sets both the phase and length of the cycle of each
woman.
This seems to be a pretty clear example of a "society"
setting the reference signals for individual humans, and it
hopefully will be a bit less of a " 'tis so, 'taint so" issue.
(Note: I have not claimed that this is an instance
of the group containing a control system, rather it merely sets
a high-level reference in its component individuals.)
Have fun ... Jeff
From Tom Bourbon (930617.1045)
[From Jeff Hunter (930617)]
[re Bill Powers (930616.0900 MDT)]
I say that there is absolutely no evidence for
collective perceptions, collective reference signals, collective
error signals, or collective mechanisms for action. I go along
with Tom Bourbon and Rick Marken: what's your evidence?
Well here's an example of a collective reference signal
for you. If a number of women are confined together their
menstrual cycles will synchronize. This does not require the
conscious knowledge of the women, it seems to happen just by
pheromones.
This is pretty remarkable since individual women have
different cycle lengths (I'm avoiding the word "periods" :-),
and some even have highly irregular cycles. Thus the homonal
reference sets both the phase and length of the cycle of each
woman.
You seem to have ruled out the possibility that synchronization of the
cycles is an uncontrolled side effect, much like those Rick discussed in his
post "Controlled and Emergent" (Rick Marken 930616.1230). If the pheromone
in question acts a disturbance to a variable (as yet unidentified, probably
because no one ever looked for it) controlled by all women who become
synchronized (not all do, do they?), then you would see exactly the
phenomenon described. In that case, there would be no need to assume a
change in reference signals. The effect could be like many people in a room
full of people salivating in synchrony when periodic blasts of an odorant,
associated with their favorite food, enter the room. (By the way, I do not
imply that menstruation is nothing more than salivation.)
This seems to be a pretty clear example of a "society"
setting the reference signals for individual humans, and it
hopefully will be a bit less of a " 'tis so, 'taint so" issue.
Maybe it is not so clear as it seemed at first. I'm glad you brought up
this example. Someone hurled it at me a couple of years ago and that time I
did not think of "pheromone as disturbance."
(Note: I have not claimed that this is an instance
of the group containing a control system, rather it merely sets
a high-level reference in its component individuals.)
See above.
Until later,
Tom Bourbon