Bruce
Interesting, thanks
AJ: But what about the (billions or trillions) of living organisms inside the body? Are they not applying PCT according to their lights? I am
also curious about intermediate more complex organisations, i.e. the organs.
BN: Yes, one of my abiding questions about the nervous system is: what’s in it for the nerve cell? / Clearly, the rate of firing in a neuron
is not controlled by the neuron; if it were, control by the neuron would inevitably come in conflict with control by the organism
AJ: I do not know enough about the detail, but arguing from general principles, I should say that the means whereby the organism as a whole influences
the behaviour of the nerve cell in its own control behaviour is by changing the cue signals (by changing electrical, chemical and other characteristics of the environment).
BN: As to the more general question, what advantages ‘motivate’ the long evolution of multi-celled organisms from isolated cells to colonies,
predator/prey, parasites, symbiotes, etc., the obvious answer, or part of an answer, seems to be stabilization of the cell’s environment, facilitating the cell’s control of its inputs.
AJ: I have been reluctant to buy into this argument for decades. Firstly, I know too much about the historical origin of this line of thinking and I
am not convinced that a tautology constitutes a theory, useful as it may be. I am also aware that after decades of attempting to explain the production of life initially, we do not yet have an answer. I am also conscious that the dominant methodology has
been reductionist and positivist. There is very little attention being given to the structural aspects of the organism except by a few biologists who have been considered rather brilliant but eccentric. I note that there is a movement in physiology away
from the bottom up approach to the structuring of the organism as a whole, one of which consists of middle-up/down. I also subscribe to Goethe’s theory of morphology, at least as far as botany, it has a substantial following. So I am inclined to think that
the jury is out in terms of understanding. You do not need to tell me that this is a somewhat dissident view.
···
…………………¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦………………………………….
Angus Jenkinson
On 27/12/2017, 15:07, “Bruce Nevin” bnhpct@gmail.com wrote:
[From Bruce Nevin (2017.12.27.09:44 ET)]
Angus Jenkinson, 20.10, Singapore 27.10.17 –
AJ: But what about the (billions or trillions) of living organisms inside the body? Are they not applying PCT according to their lights? I am also curious about intermediate more complex organisations, i.e.
the organs.
Yes, one of my abiding questions about the nervous system is: what’s in it for the nerve cell?
Clearly, the rate of firing in a neuron is not controlled by the neuron; if it were, control by the neuron would inevitably come in conflict with control by the organism of whose behavioral control hierarchy it is a functional part. The
rates of firing, the perceptual, reference, and error signals in our model, can only be byproducts of whatever values the neuron is controlling as it carries on its little cellular life. The rate of firing probably
must be imperceptible as such to the cell, ensuring that the cell cannot control it.
As to the more general question, what advantages ‘motivate’ the long evolution of multi-celled organisms from isolated cells to colonies, predator/prey, parasites, symbiotes, etc., the obvious answer, or part of an answer, seems to be stabilization
of the cell’s environment, facilitating the cell’s control of its inputs.
One wonders about the failure of individual cells to be ‘good citizens’, resulting in cancerous tumors.
I wonder, too, about possible ‘byproducts’ of our participation in collective control. Do unintended side effects have functions, necessarily imperceptible to cellular us, in some larger structure? Such effects would have to be imperceptible
to us as such, ensuring that we cannot bring them under our control.
/Bruce
On Wed, Dec 27, 2017 at 7:12 AM, Angus Jenkinson angus@angusjenkinson.com wrote:
Angus Jenkinson, 20.10, Singapore 27.10.17
Thank you Bruce. We are converging.
But what about the (billions or trillions) of living organisms inside the body? Are they not applying PCT according to their lights? I am also curious about intermediate more complex organisations, i.e. the organs.
Mobile message
On 27 Dec 2017, at 00:31, Bruce Nevin bnhpct@gmail.com wrote:
[From Bruce Nevin (2017.12.26.11:17 ET)]
Angus Jenkinson (Tue, Dec 26, 2017 at 3:31 AM) –
Yes, I fully agree about ‘external determinism’, and as we know PCT demonstrates how environmental factors do not govern behavior. This has got confused because of how difficulties controlling perceptions of environmental factors can influence
what perceptions are controlled, by what feedback paths, and in accord with what reference values. However, I was referring to what one by contrast might term ‘internal determinism’ within a given negative-feedback control loop. Substituting ‘determine’ in
place of ‘cause’, I rephrase:
By physical properties of the environment, output q.o determines (with environmental disturbances as other determinants) the perceived state of perceived environmental variables {v1…vn}; which by physical
properties of the environment such as transmission of photons determine stimulation to input sensors {s1…sn}; which by chemical and electrical properties of the nervous system and its biochemical environment determine the value (the firing rate) of an inhibitory
‘neural current’ in a perceptual input function; synapsing of which with an excitatory reference signal determines the value of an error signal neural current; which (often along with other such error signals) determines the value of an excitatory reference
signal; which determines output q.o; closing the loop of circular determination through the environment.
Looking forward with you to a good year ahead.
/Bruce