# another problem for me with PCT : unobserved perceptions

**URL:** <http://discourse.iapct.org/t/another-problem-for-me-with-pct-unobserved-perceptions/13054>\
**Category:** CSG2008\
**Created:** [January 27, 2008, 5:57pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/another-problem-for-me-with-pct-unobserved-perceptions/13054 "2008-01-27T17:57:49Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 3\
**Page:** 1

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Jim\_Dundon](http://discourse.iapct.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/j/977dab/32.png) [@Jim\_Dundon](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/Jim_Dundon)\
**Post date:** [January 27, 2008, 5:57pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/another-problem-for-me-with-pct-unobserved-perceptions/13054/1 "2008-01-27T17:57:49Z")

</div>

(Jim Dundon 01.27.08.1246est)

Two rules of PCT are

1 No just knowing, everything has to be proven

2 No faithing, everything has to be proven.

So. what exactly are unobserved perceptions. Have they been proven to exist? If so, how?

If they are sometimes unobserved and sometimes observed how do we know they exist in the unobserved state?

If they have never been observed how do we know they exist at all?

Let’s be continuously scientific here please, no slacking.

No loose wording!!

best

Jim

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![MartinT](http://discourse.iapct.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/m/ee7513/32.png) [@MartinT](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/MartinT)\
**Post date:** [January 27, 2008, 6:34pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/another-problem-for-me-with-pct-unobserved-perceptions/13054/2 "2008-01-27T18:34:57Z")

</div>

[Martin Taylor 2008.01.17.13.20]

> (Jim Dundon 01.27.08.1246est)
> 
> Two rules of PCT are
> 
> 1 No just knowing, everything has to be proven
> 
> 2 No faithing, everything has to be proven.

Those "rules" both sounds unscientific to me. I would reword them like this:

1. No "just knowing", everything has to be tested  
2. Nothing is taken on faith without being explicitly identified as such for the purpose of testing.

> So. what exactly are unobserved perceptions. Have they been proven to exist? If so, how?

No. But let me ask you, do you understand what a "perception" is, in Perceptual Control THEORY? Do you understand the difference between the PCT-technical use of the term and the everyday use?

> If they are sometimes unobserved and sometimes observed how do we know they exist in the unobserved state?

We don't "know" that, any more than we "know" that the apparently solid matter of our everyday lives is built from invisibly small bits to which we give the name of "atoms". We infer their existence because without them it is extremely hard to understand a lot of things about our interactions with the material world. Likewise, without unObserved perceptions it is hard to understand how, for example, an animal stands up on its feet. We don't even "know" whether any person other than ourselves Observes anything at all.

As with almost all science, and with your constructed word-world there are two complementary reasons for thinking something might possibly be true. It should not be inconsistent with other things we believe to be true, and it should not be inconsistent with things we do Observe. There are better reasons for thinking that something has a good chance of being true, mainly that if we assume it to be true, many other things we have observed make more sense than if we assume it to be false. This latter reason is why we continue to treat the existence of unobserved perceptions as being probably true.

> If they have never been observed how do we know they exist at all?
> 
> Let's be continuously scientific here please, no slacking.

What is your meaning for "scientific"?

> No loose wording!!

I'm afraid it's impossible to avoid loose wording while at the same time keeping open a channel of communication. Remember that Russell and Whitehead took some hundred pages or so to get from "neither-nor" to "and" (or something like that). It wasn't very intelligible, however correct it may have been.

Martin

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Bill\_Powers1](http://discourse.iapct.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/b/8e7dd6/32.png) [@Bill\_Powers1](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/Bill_Powers1)\
**Post date:** [January 27, 2008, 6:46pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/another-problem-for-me-with-pct-unobserved-perceptions/13054/3 "2008-01-27T18:46:45Z")

</div>

[From Bill Powers (2008.01.27.1103 MST)]

> Jim Dundon 01.27.08.1246est
> 
> Two rules of PCT are
> 
> 1 No just knowing, everything  
> has to be proven
> 
> 2 No faithing, everything has  
> to be proven.
> 
> So. what exactly are  
> unobserved perceptions. Have they been proven to exist? If  
> so, how?
> 
> If they are sometimes  
> unobserved and sometimes observed how do we know they exist in the  
> unobserved state?
> 
> If they have never been  
> observed how do we know they exist at all?

OK, reasonable questions so I’ll try to answer them.

1,2: “Proving” an idea means using it to make a prediction  
about something we will observe if the idea is correct, and will not  
observe if it is wrong. I do this primarily by using computer simulations  
because they allow making very exact predictions and detecting relatively  
small departures of the simulation’s behavior from what the real person  
does. There are other ways of doing this, but I’m best at using this  
approach, and it is very sensitive to incorrect theorizing.

Unobserved perceptions: there are many examples of these. The way we  
detect them is somewhat indirect. I can mention something like the  
pressure of the seat you’re sitting in, and that perception (if not  
already conscious) immediately becomes conscious unless you’re not  
sitting down. If you’re not sitting down, calling attention to the  
perception being described does not make you conscious of it. The mostly  
likely conclusion is that the neural signals coming from the pressure  
receptors were there all the time, but were not reaching your awareness  
until you were encouraged to pay attention to them. If we had the  
resources, we could do further tests by actually measuring the neural  
impulses to verify that the sense-organs were working before you became  
aware of the sensation. I haven’t done that, but the other evidence is  
fairly reasonable.

Another approach is to demonstrate that a person is controlling some  
environmental variable while not being aware of doing so (like keeping  
your balance while walking, with all your attention on an approaching car  
that might hit you). According to all we know about control processes,  
control requires the presence of neural signals representing the variable  
that is under control – that is, perceptual signals. We have several  
ways of testing to see if a person is controlling some variable (like  
disturbing it and looking for actions that oppose – or if there is no  
control, fail to oppose – the disturbance). We still have to rely on the  
person to tell us if the perception was consciously experienced, but at  
least we can reasonably-well establish that the variable was under  
control (if it was) when the person says there was no awareness of  
perceiving it. We could go farther and show that if we make perception of  
the variable impossible, the person can’t control it either consciously  
or unconsciously. I haven’t done that in this context, though I’ve done  
it in other contexts. Preventing perception of a disturbed variable  
always prevents control of it.

A third approach, which I haven’t tried yet, is to measure the parameters  
of control in some control task and see if they have different values  
when attention is distracted to something else. It might also be possible  
to detect reorganization as the parameters change, assuming there is some  
kind of intrinsic error (a touchy subject, since that would require doing  
something that makes the participant more than just a little  
uncomfortable). Not all experiments that we can think of doing are  
ethically possible to do.

Of course perceptions that we NEVER observe remain unknown and we can’t  
say anything about them. I have never claimed to know of perceptions of  
that kind. The answer to your final question, therefore, is “we  
don’t.”

Best,

Bill P.