# Consciousness, Hard and Soft PCT, Attention, Etc

**URL:** http://discourse.iapct.org/t/consciousness-hard-and-soft-pct-attention-etc/2852
**Category:** CSG1996
**Created:** [April 30, 1996, 8:55pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/consciousness-hard-and-soft-pct-attention-etc/2852 "1996-04-30T20:55:32Z")
**Posts on this page:** 1
**Showing post:** 1

<div class="post-metadata">

### Author: ![Richard\_Marken](http://discourse.iapct.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/r/9fc348/32.png) [@Richard\_Marken](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/Richard_Marken)
#### Post date: [April 30, 1996, 8:55pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/consciousness-hard-and-soft-pct-attention-etc/2852/1 "1996-04-30T20:55:32Z")

</div>

[From Rick Marken (960430.1400)]

Me:

> Implicit in the method of levels is the idea that the direction of the  
> arrow of consciousness is always "downwards" in the control hierarchy.

Stefan Balke (960430.1530 CET):

> This is a very interesting perspective, but how can you be sure whether you  
> are just inventing a rationalization or whether you really raised your  
> consciousness (going up a level) in order to see the higher order perception?

Right now, I have no way to be sure. The only thing that would increase my  
surety (about the downward direction of the arrow of consciousness) is  
experimental test. I think it might be possible to test this in a conflict  
resolution experiment. The idea would be to introduce the conflict above or  
below the control level of which the subject is currently aware (what the  
subject is aware of could be determined by asking questions like "what are  
you doing"). If the conflict is introduced below the (control) level of  
awareness then it should be resolved quickly; if it is above the level of  
awareness it should be much more difficult to resolve.

Bruce Gregory (960430.1215 EDT):

Re: Soft and Hard PCT

I like your distinction between Soft and Hard PCT. You say:

> the "Soft" school [believes] that an autonomous "force" (consciousness) can  
> intervene and redirect elements of the system...[the] "Hard" school ...  
> [believes] there is no need to invoke a consciousness or awareness out  
> side the hierarchical system -- consciousness and awareness are part  
> and parcel of the hierarchical system.

What's missing here is an explanaiton of \_why\_ the Soft school has a separate  
consciousness system and the Hard school does not. The reason is this (I  
think): Those of us in the Soft school know that when we are aware of  
controlling we are doing something (observing) that is separate from what we  
are observing (controlling). Since we already have a model of the aspect of  
ourselves that does the controlling, we know that a separate model is needed  
for the aspect of ourselves that does the observing of that controlling. The  
latter model we call "consciousness"; we don't know how to build that model  
yet (snce we have no data), but we know that such a model is needed.

The Hard school doesn't think a separate consciousness model is needed,  
either because 1) they don't understand that that the ability to observe  
their own controlling implies the existence of an observer system that is  
separate from the controlling system or 2) they imagine (without  
demonstration) that one sufficiently "complex" or "organized" system can be,  
at the same time, both a controlling system and the system that is aware of  
its own controlling (thisstrikes me as being like imagining that a  
sufficiently complex and organized TV can be, at the same time, both the  
producer of an image and the observer of that image).

Richard Thurman (960430.0815):

> I hoped that by talking about post-commissurotomy research we (those  
> interested in the issue) might agree that one can be 'aware' of, yet not be  
> paying attention to many variables.

I don't see this.

Maybe we should try defining these terms in a way that could be linked to an  
actual model. I think "awareness" might be defined as "the perception of a  
perception". I am aware of a perception when I am perceiving the fact that  
that perception exists; the distance from my nose to the computer screen is a  
perception that is always there; but I am aware of it only when I perceive  
the fact that that perception is happening.

I think of "attention" as the process of becoming aware of a perception;  
coming to perceive that a perception is present. Before I was aware of the  
perception of the distance between my nose and the computer screen, I was  
aware of some other perception (like the screen itself). The process of  
moving awareness from one perception to another is what I would  
call "attention" (or "shifting attention" but I would prefer calling  
attention the process of "shifting awareness").

Martin Taylor (960430 11:30) --

> One of the functions of attention seems to be to restrict what would  
> otherwise be multiple parallel streams of processing down to one (or a small  
> number).

So "attention" is a control system, controlling the number of "parallel  
streams of information" and keeping the number of streams equal to a  
reference level of one. But why would attention be doing this? To protect our  
single bus information processors from "information overload"? 😉

Best

Rick

---

_[View the full topic](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/consciousness-hard-and-soft-pct-attention-etc/2852)._