And here is the summary of Ch. 10, Transition Control. Comments
welcome as usual. I'd be particularly interested in hearing anyone's
comments on /criticisms of this analysis.
And again I am not posting a study guide for the next chapter --
chapter 11: Sequence Control. But again do try to look it over.
And special thanks to Rupert Young for diligently responding to our
weekly "lessons".
An interesting chapter on how a sequence of events can be controlled, which takes the theory into a realm that is probably more relevant to our everyday experience of our interactions with the world. I enjoyed the description of the mechanics of a sequence input function, for recognising a word. I would have liked to have had a description of the other side of the control loop, of how the output function would work.
1. Myriad events. No, I don't think so.
2. I guess the sequence input functions for recognising the foreign words are not present; or not yet optimised/organised.
3. Putting in and taking out. Whichever you like.
4. The sequence input function is a "fuzzy recogniser"; there is a sufficient elements, in the right sequence to constitute the perception of "birthday".
5. Dun dun dun duuuuun. You would perceive a different sequence; a different sequence would be activated. Because it is a perception of a collection of other perceptions. A different sequence, without a transition.
Regards,
Rupert
Rick Marken (2013.09.15.2140)]
And here is the summary of Ch. 10, Transition Control. Comments
welcome as usual. I'd be particularly interested in hearing anyone's
comments on /criticisms of this analysis.
And again I am not posting a study guide for the next chapter --
chapter 11: Sequence Control. But again do try to look it over.
And special thanks to Rupert Young for diligently responding to our
weekly "lessons".
Rick (and others) may be able to help me here, or keep these little comments until later.
When considering some of the smallest changes leading to transitions, how about a subtle change of wavelength as in the Pulfrich effect where 2D and 3D interchange? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ze4fA5nGysU
Racing drivers report everything slowing down almost to slow-motion when travelling at high speeds though when an accident occurs everything speeds up to ‘normal’.
Pilots report when landing an aircraft using a visual approach that at the moment of contact the landscape suddenly becomes a blur, whereas just prior to wheel contact it was in slow motion.
If you view a vertical finger at arm’s length against the wall and move your head slowly sideways and maintain your finger on the same spot on the wall the finger does not appear to move.
Years ago we got interested in drivers’ reports from T-intersection accidents, especially when they pulled out from a ‘Give way’ after looking both ways and straight into the path of an approaching vehicle. They say, ‘But I never saw it’. Here’s how we ‘explained’ this failure to see what was there all along. When a vehicle is approaching a T-intersection at slow speed along the stem of the Tee towards the cross-bar and the driver glances each way looking for oncoming traffic on an otherwise empty road, the frame of the side-window through which the driver is looking serves as a reference. Now, on those rare occasions when a single vehicle is positioned right in the middle of that window frame it is invisible because the relative change is zero. I’d now say there is no perceived transition. We tried to simulate this effect but back then the equipment wasn’t fast enough. As an aside, we did station ourselves in a small telephone company tent as a blind and filmed drivers head movements to see how long they glanced; it is fleeting. We also thought of some nice road-safety videos if we could operationalise a simulation. It was a lot of fun. Back to the theme: the transition explanation is a useful way for understanding why there are ‘compulsory stops’, then an approaching vehicle is no longer invisible. Myself, I stop and look twice each way as I know there’s magic here.
And talking of magic, isn’t this the role of a magician; diverting attention so a non-logical transition is presented and thus believed? Ask any kid…Indeed in the literature it’s known as magical thinking.
An interesting chapter on how a sequence of events can be
controlled, which takes the theory into a realm that is probably
more relevant to our everyday experience of our interactions with
the world. I enjoyed the description of the mechanics of a
sequence input function, for recognising a word. I would have
liked to have had a description of the other side of the control
loop, of how the output function would work.
Myriad events. No, I don’t think so.
I guess the sequence input functions for recognising the
foreign words are not present; or not yet optimised/organised.
Putting in and taking out. Whichever you like.
The sequence input function is a "fuzzy recogniser"; there
is a sufficient elements, in the right sequence to constitute
the perception of “birthday”.
Dun dun dun duuuuun. You would perceive a different
sequence; a different sequence would be activated. Because it
is a perception of a collection of other perceptions. A
different sequence, without a transition.
Regards,
Rupert
On 16/09/2013 05:38, Richard Marken wrote:
Rick Marken (2013.09.15.2140)]
And here is the summary of Ch. 10, Transition Control. Comments
welcome as usual. I'd be particularly interested in hearing anyone's
comments on /criticisms of this analysis.
And again I am not posting a study guide for the next chapter --
chapter 11: Sequence Control. But again do try to look it over.
And special thanks to Rupert Young for diligently responding to our
weekly "lessons".
Best regards
Rick
JK: When considering some of the smallest changes leading to transitions, how about a subtle change of wavelength as in the Pulfrich effect where 2D and 3D interchange? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ze4fA5nGysU
RM: I think the Pulfrich results from an artificially produced stereopsis resulting from the differential light intensity at each eye; this results in the sensations being formed at different times in each eye, probably due to the differential sensory integration times required to produce the intensity perceptions that are the basis of perception of the state of the pendulum in each eye.Transition (in terms of movement of the pendulum) is perceived with or without the difference in light levels at the two eyes. It’s the illusory movement in depth created by the differential light levels that is surprising in the Pulfrich. From a PCT perspective, the question would be “what kind of perception is the perception of depth (distance)”. Since the type of transition (towards or away) depends on the depth perception, I would say that the stereoptical depth created by the differential light levels at each eye in the Pulfrich is a nice demonstration of hierarchical perception, where the transition perception (apparent circular movement of the pendulum) clearly depends on the lower level sensation perception of distance.
Now that I think about it, random dot stereograms are also a pretty nice demonstration of the fact that configuration perceptions are at a higher level than sensation or intensity perceptions. The random dot patterns in a stereogram are just a collection of intensities but when combined stereoscopically the differential depth sensations of the different points can be perceived as arbitrarily complex configuration (like house nestled in a nice landscape).
I think you have just given me an idea for a great new way to study the perceptual hierarchy – using binocular (and binaural) perception. Thanks John!!!
JK: And talking of magic, isn’t this the role of a magician; diverting attention so a non-logical transition is presented and thus believed? Ask any kid…Indeed in the literature it’s known as magical thinking.
RM: Yes, magic is all about getting people to perceive things in a particular way. Love magic!
An interesting chapter on how a sequence of events can be
controlled, which takes the theory into a realm that is probably
more relevant to our everyday experience of our interactions with
the world. I enjoyed the description of the mechanics of a
sequence input function, for recognising a word. I would have
liked to have had a description of the other side of the control
loop, of how the output function would work.
Myriad events. No, I don’t think so.
I guess the sequence input functions for recognising the
foreign words are not present; or not yet optimised/organised.
Putting in and taking out. Whichever you like.
The sequence input function is a "fuzzy recogniser"; there
is a sufficient elements, in the right sequence to constitute
the perception of “birthday”.
Dun dun dun duuuuun. You would perceive a different
sequence; a different sequence would be activated. Because it
is a perception of a collection of other perceptions. A
different sequence, without a transition.
Regards,
Rupert
On 16/09/2013 05:38, Richard Marken wrote:
Rick Marken (2013.09.15.2140)]
And here is the summary of Ch. 10, Transition Control. Comments
welcome as usual. I'd be particularly interested in hearing anyone's
comments on /criticisms of this analysis.
And again I am not posting a study guide for the next chapter --
chapter 11: Sequence Control. But again do try to look it over.
And special thanks to Rupert Young for diligently responding to our
weekly "lessons".
Best regards
Rick