Calling Forth - Closing the Loop

[From Bruce Gregory (980404.0900 EST)]

Thanks to Rick, Bill, and, albeit unknowingly, Tom Bourbon, I believe I can
now describe the experience of being "called forth" in HPCT terms. I used
the term in an effort to capture what it feels like when an LCS that is
playing tennis encounters a ball coming toward it across the net. At the
program level the LCS is "playing tennis". Exercising control at this level
requires a host of lower level perceptions to be controlled. Tennis is
played most effectively when the attention of the LCS is focused on the
ball. (Placing your attention on "I am playing tennis" or any other higher
level construct is not going to improve your game!) When attention is
directed to the ball, the reference level associated with "meeting the ball"
set by a higher level is "invisible" to the LCS. When the ball is in the
"right" place, the LCS swings to avoid generating an error called "missing
the ball." In the awareness of the LCS, the ball "calls forth" the tennis
swing. This is not a causal relationship. It is, as always the error that
initiates the action. But since the LCS is keeping the error low, and has no
access, direct or imagined, to its reference levels, all that is "present"
for the LCS is the ball and the swing.

Bruce

[From Bill Powers (980404.1220 MST)]

Bruce Gregory (980404.0900 EST)--

Tennis is
played most effectively when the attention of the LCS is focused on the
ball. (Placing your attention on "I am playing tennis" or any other higher
level construct is not going to improve your game!) When attention is
directed to the ball, the reference level associated with "meeting the ball"
set by a higher level is "invisible" to the LCS. When the ball is in the
"right" place, the LCS swings to avoid generating an error called "missing
the ball." In the awareness of the LCS, the ball "calls forth" the tennis
swing. This is not a causal relationship. It is, as always the error that
initiates the action. But since the LCS is keeping the error low, and has no
access, direct or imagined, to its reference levels, all that is "present"
for the LCS is the ball and the swing.

I'm really curious as to why you want to use this concept of the ball
calling forth the swing. Whenever you use it, you have to pause and explain
that you don't really mean that the ball is doing anything but flying
through the air, and that you don't think the ball can really "call" the
action into being, and that the swing isn't really a response to the
stimulus of the approaching ball. By the time you have issued all the
necessary disclaimers, it seems to me that this terminology "calls forth"
more effort than it's worth.

And you're going to have to explain to me why _attention_ has to be focused
on the ball. Isn't it sufficient for the control systems involved to
contain perceptions of the ball? Are you using "attention" as a synonym for
"perception?"

Best,

Bill P.

[From Bruce Gregory (980404.1707 EST)]

Bill Powers (980404.1220 MST)]

I'm really curious as to why you want to use this concept of the ball
calling forth the swing. Whenever you use it, you have to pause and explain
that you don't really mean that the ball is doing anything but flying
through the air, and that you don't think the ball can really "call" the
action into being, and that the swing isn't really a response to the
stimulus of the approaching ball. By the time you have issued all the
necessary disclaimers, it seems to me that this terminology "calls forth"
more effort than it's worth.

Actually, it is a language that makes sense to another community. One
considerably larger but far less rigorous than PCTers. For better or worse,
they don't need the disclaimers. For them, the ball appears to call forth
the swing. My goal is to use PCT to insure that whatever I say to them is
based on science--not that they care. They just care that they can make use
of whatever I say.

And you're going to have to explain to me why _attention_ has to be focused
on the ball. Isn't it sufficient for the control systems involved to
contain perceptions of the ball? Are you using "attention" as a synonym for
"perception?"

Let me cite the words of another guru, Vic Braden:

"When you are swinging in a northerly direction and the ball keeps heading
south, you are in trouble. One reason is that you very likely are watching
your opponent instead of the ball. Even though your eyes cannot track the
ball as it approaches impact with your racket, try to look at the seams of
the ball, or read the writing, or watch the wool come through the back side
of the strings anything to get you to concentrate on making good contact "

In the words of William James, "Everyone knows what attention is. It is the
taking possession by the mind, in clear and vivid form, of one out of what
seem several simultaneously possible objects or trains of thought...It
implies withdrawal from some things in order to deal effectively with
others."

If you are playing tennis and wondering how Bruce Gregory can be so
misguided, you may be perceiving the ball as it comes over the net, but your
attention is divided. In sports the term often used is concentration. A
player tries to distract, to break the concentration, of his opponent. "Keep
your eye on the ball." We perceive many things at the same time, but we are
most effective when we attend to one perception.

Bruce

[From Bruce Gregory (980405.0544 EDT)]

Bill Powers (980404.1220 MST)

And you're going to have to explain to me why _attention_ has to be focused
on the ball. Isn't it sufficient for the control systems involved to
contain perceptions of the ball? Are you using "attention" as a synonym for
"perception?"

Attention sometimes seems to alter the gain on a loop. Is it possible that
attention represents (our only?) access to loop gain?

Bruce

[From Bill Powers (980405.0849 MST)]

Bruce Gregory (980404.1707 EST)--

I'm really curious as to why you want to use this concept of the ball
calling forth the swing.

Actually, it is a language that makes sense to another community. One
considerably larger but far less rigorous than PCTers. For better or worse,
they don't need the disclaimers. For them, the ball appears to call forth
the swing. My goal is to use PCT to insure that whatever I say to them is
based on science--not that they care. They just care that they can make use
of whatever I say.

If you want to base what you say on science, you will not use language that
promotes ideas contrary to the scientific ones. If you just want to suck up
to the misinformed majority, you will not say anything to them that might
hurt their feelings by implying that their ideas are wrong.

I don't want to do that. The majority will be dead pretty soon, and a new
one will come along that doesn't need catering to so much. I'm writing for
the next majority. But I also want to do what I can about those who want to
preserve the present misunderstandings, because they're working against me.

In the words of William James, "Everyone knows what attention is. It is the
taking possession by the mind, in clear and vivid form, of one out of what
seem several simultaneously possible objects or trains of thought...It
implies withdrawal from some things in order to deal effectively with
others."

Everybody knows? Then I guess we don't need to do any research on whatever
it means, do we?

If you are playing tennis and wondering how Bruce Gregory can be so
misguided, you may be perceiving the ball as it comes over the net, but your
attention is divided. In sports the term often used is concentration. A
player tries to distract, to break the concentration, of his opponent. "Keep
your eye on the ball." We perceive many things at the same time, but we are
most effective when we attend to one perception.

Sure, but what is "attention" and what effects does it actually have? I
remain uninformed. I'll probably die uninformed, but at least I won't think
I know what I don't know.

Best,

Bill P.

[From Bill Powers (980405.0859 MST)]

Bruce Gregory (980405.0544 EDT)--

Attention sometimes seems to alter the gain on a loop. Is it possible that
attention represents (our only?) access to loop gain?

Good possibility. Now all we have to do is figure out how to see if it's
right.

Best,

Bill P.

[From Bruce Gregory (980405.1255 EDT)]

Bill Powers (980405.0849 MST)

Sure, but what is "attention" and what effects does it actually have? I
remain uninformed. I'll probably die uninformed, but at least I won't think
I know what I don't know.

Now whose Knickers are twisted?

Bruce

[From Bruce Nevin (980407.1928 EDT)] <Yes, this is really me this time.>

Bill Powers (980405.0859 MST)--

Bruce Gregory (980405.0544 EDT)

Attention sometimes seems to alter the gain on a loop. Is it possible that
attention represents (our only?) access to loop gain?

Good possibility. Now all we have to do is figure out how to see if it's
right.

If it is not true, having the participant in an experiment pay closer
attention to the controlled perception will have no effect on gain. If
paying closer attention does correlate with increased gain, that is
unfortunately not conclusive because we don't have a good understanding of
what it is to pay more attention or less.

How do you pay more attention? A perception of the writing or the seams on
a fast-approaching, spinning tennis ball is difficult to control. Effort is
expended focusing the eyes, probably widening the pupils, widening the eyes
or squinting.

How do you pay less attention? by attending to other things at the same
time. By generally paying less attention to anything i.e. being sleepy. If
one is expending a lot of effort as above, then reducing the effort amounts
to paying less attention. I know of no other way. Do you?

Studying the seams or reading the label on that approaching tennis ball is
attending to perceptions that are available only when you are relatively
close to the ball leading up to the perception at close hand of contacting
the ball with the raquet. Is this what we mean by paying closer attention?

When we concentrate, less attention is given to other perceptions. Perhaps
it's just as we turn off the radio when we're lost in a car and finding our
way, we "turn off" awareness of perceptions that would be distractions.
Presumably, that means lowering the gain on control of the other
perceptions. But if we're just monitoring a perception that we might
control if error becomes large enough, then presumably gain is already at
or near zero. Metaphorically, it's as though gain could become less than
zero, perhaps it's control of excluding (not perceiving) anything but the
perception we're concentrating on.

You can pay attention to a perception without controlling it, that is, with
zero gain. Or is paying attention to the perception a form of controlling
the perception? Or, as above, is it controlling a perception of not
perceiving other things?

When I close my eyes and pay attention to the sound of the fan in that
external disk drive, I also find myself hearing other environmental sounds
that I had hitherto not noticed: the conversation upstairs, the hum of the
overhead lights. I could ignore those and just listen to the fan, but that
would take some effort. It is unclear to me what the effort is. What it
accomplishes is that I appear not to notice the other sounds that I have
chosen to ignore.

So maybe the real question is not how do we attend to perceptions, but how
do we ignore perceptions. We're already using gain=0 for monitoring without
control. And anyway, there seems to be some effort involved. So, while
attention might correlate with an increase in loop gain (TBD), it does not
follow that that is all it does, or that that is how it works.

  Bruce Nevin

[From Bruce Gregory (980406.1042 EDT)]

Bruce Nevin (980407.1928 EDT) <Yes, this is really me
this time.>

Thank goodness :wink: (Although you _are_ two days ahead of me...)

How do you pay less attention? by attending to other things at the same
time. By generally paying less attention to anything i.e. being sleepy. If
one is expending a lot of effort as above, then reducing the effort amounts
to paying less attention. I know of no other way. Do you?

Your post has a great set of questions. I hope I'm not the only
one thinking about possible answers.

Bruce