[From Chris Cherpas (2001.02.20.2330 PT)]
Chris Cherpas (2001.02.20.1120 PT)--
Couldn't "consciousness" and "attention" be explained by the same
perceptual control systems by which we explain other perceptions?
If not, why not?
Bill Powers(2001.02.20.1519 MST)--
Other perceptions are unique and specific: car, brightness, hurt, honesty,
democracy, etc. What I refer to as consciousness/attention/awareness is
simply what is common to all other perceptions of which I know. It is the
knowing of them, which is the same regardless of which perceptions are the
object of knowing.
I can see that as another perception, in which case what is unique
and specific is that it is the only perception of what is common to
all other perceptions. A perception of perceiving seems like a system
concept perception.
Bill Powers(2001.02.20.1519 MST)--
It is possible to control perceptions of which we are not conscious (etc.).
All of the things we control have to be controlled perceptual signals,
according to PCT, yet we do not consciously experience everything we are
controlling. This suggests pretty strongly that perceiving is not the same
thing as being conscious of what we are perceiving. The PCT model offers,
uniquely, a way to tell whether perception is occurring independently of
whether a person is conscious of the perception.
The fact that we do not consciously experience everything we are
controlling might suggest to me that perceiving is different than
being conscious, but I think an argument can be made to the
contrary. If we apply the Test to the perception of consciousness,
I think we get evidence of control. I perceive consciousness as
something about me, whereas others might perceive some kind of
"field" of consciousness that cuts across organismic boundaries.
Either way, consciousness still seems like a system concept.
Bill Powers(2001.02.20.1519 MST)--
Many Eastern disciplines use techniques which encourage people to observe
what is in their minds (such as thoughts) without identifying with them,
until a state is reached in which there is pure awareness, or awareness
without object.
I think awareness without object is probably a controlled perception.
The fact that discipline is involved suggests that this is so. Each
time thoughts and other perceptions of awareness-with-object arise,
this disturbance is opposed, and the perceiver returns to awareness
without object. The discipline facilitates negative feedback control.
Bill Powers(2001.02.20.1519 MST)--
The thoughts all die away, as do emotions and other kinds
of experience, until the system is at rest and the Observer is simply
observing. This is the state I call "awareness." When the brain systems
become active again, they provide objects to which awareness can attend --
like an observer waiting in a silent and dark room, and then having someone
turn on a radio and a TV. The combination of awareness and perceptions to
be aware of is what I call consciousness.
In my view, the Observer is also system concept perception. Each time
the person finds s/he is slipping back into thoughts and emotions,
one has the perception that one is no longer acting as a pure
Observer. Error is pretty obvious with practice. And so it
is with riding a bike.
Of course, putting all this in words becomes a rather futile exercise
of trying somehow reproduce a system concept with something like
crudely pieced-together program-level perceptions. However, I'm going
to try anyway. I think it is consistent with system concept control
that we would feel comfortable with a view of ourselves as having a
kind of integrated core -- the Observer -- and that it is relatively
disturbing to see ourselves as a "mere" collection of perceptions
that lack such a common, unifying quality -- that we are forever doomed
to dissociated, multiple identities.
That is, I suspect a bias, a DESIRE for a pure observer. I WANT it to
be true. But that's where the conflict comes in -- it may be an illusion,
like other things we wish were so. I think the ability to
perceive oneself as a perceiver allows an illusion of transcending
perception. An experience we describe as "pure" hints of a controlled
perception -- i.e., free of error.
Bill Powers(2001.02.20.1519 MST)--
To me, the critical fact is that perception can be shown to be present by
showing that control exists (if you accept the control-system model), while
consciousness may or may not be present at the same time.
But this may only amount to perception without an accompanying
perception of perceiving versus perception with the perception
of perceiving. (It's getting difficult to continue in this vein!)
To me, the critical fact is that there are lots of controlled perceptions
we may have never understood as such until we studied them as such;
so, my bias is to think that it is unlikely that we have sufficiently
exhausted the possibilities for consciousness being anything other than
an instance of "it's all perception."
I'm hoping that after another hundred years or so of research, we'll
have improved our understanding of whatever it is we're talking about.
Best regards,
cc (practically unconscious)