"Random" is an elusive concept. All it really means is [...]
Yes, "random" is a confession of ignorance, that's all. Which is to say, we
assume that the universe is determinate. We believe in cause and effect. Of
course, some of the most interesting cause and effect relations go in a
circle rather than in a line, and many systems are nonlinear and "chaotic,"
but not random. Or so we believe.
But in one's universe of perception what we're talking about is a reaching
into the unknown, the indeterminate (by us). Hence, the random, from the
parochial point of view of a living control system. Which is to say,
ignorance.
If you want to be creative, just do something. Then go on from there. If it
doesn't pan out, do something else. Just make it up. Improvise.
What is happening when I observe something without control?
"Observing" is itself a controlled perception.
Suppose observing (without controlling that which is observed) is a
controlled perception: it does not follow that the control system doing the
controlling is also observing.
Suppose observing cannot be a controlled perception: then what is going on
when in meditation I return from distraction to observing the breath at the
nostrils? (Or whatever the meditation object is.) Seems like control to me.
Maybe this is the point of misunderstanding. The Observer does not control
anything; the Observer Observes. If it has any goals for what it observes,
I don't know what they are. My brain doesn't know.
I'm not here proposing that the Observer or Witness controls anything. I'm
figuring out whether it can be controlled, as though it were a perceptual
input within the hierarchy.
At least sometimes what is controlled is the perceptions that are involved
in attending to the perceptions singled out for observation; and what is
controlling those "paying attention" perceptions is an intention that the
"attended to" perceptions be perceived and continue to be perceived. I'm
not sure what the "paying attention" perceptions are in a sitting
meditation, it's not like turning and gazing after attractive objects.
That's where I was stuck: it seems like there's nothing left to control
except the locus of the Observer.
In the street-gazing situation, the intention to continue feasting your
eyes provides a location as it were for the Observer (by means of what the
intention controls). In meditation we notice that the observer evidently
tends to "move around". Perhaps the effort of fulfilling the intention
(that certain singled-out perceptions be perceived and continue to be
perceived) causes attention to locate itself there. Or perhaps that is the
intention-loop with highest gain (and distractions compete with it), but
that's begging the question of what sets loop gain.
Sorry, still flailing. I've got to let this percolate.
I snipped the following from the exchange indicated by the date-time
signatures immediately below...it reminds me of a test that PCT passed
with me a long time ago and that behaviorism didn't...back to that in
a moment...
Bruce Gregory 9980408.1043 EDT)
Bruce Nevin (980407.2208 EDT)
>> When I cannot pay attention
>> without control, either control of the perception or control of perceiving
>> that perception. Attention is the elimination of conflict between
>> controlling one perception and concurrently controlling another.
>
>I'm not sure how you arrived at this. When a mother runs into a
>burning building to rescue her child has she eliminated, or
>overwhelmed conflict?
What useful distinction is there between the two?
In one case she is not aware of being in danger, in the other
case she is aware of being in danger but the "avoid" danger
hierarchy is not in control.
Back when I was in the Navy and first mucking about with training and
behaviorism and all that "stuff," one of the tests I used to use with
respect to psychological theories was to ask, "Will this account for
jumping on a grenade?" I have yet to hear a convincing explanation
from a dyed-in-the-wool behaviorist as to how reinforcement theory
accounts for such behavior. PCT, as the mother-saving-child example
above illustrates, offers a very convincing explanation -- not just
of why some people will jump on a grenade but also why some people
won't.
Observing inwardly, attention to a perception is experienced as
concentration, ignoring other perceptions. How do we model
"ignoring" in HPCT?
Good question.
When I cannot pay attention
without control, either control of the perception or control of perceiving
that perception. Attention is the elimination of conflict between
controlling one perception and concurrently controlling another.
I'm not sure how you arrived at this. When a mother runs into a
burning building to rescue her child has she eliminated, or
overwhelmed conflict?
What useful distinction is there between the two?
In one case she is not aware of being in danger, in the other
case she is aware of being in danger but the "avoid" danger
hierarchy is not in control.
She started with conflict as to which perception to control. In either
case, the conflict is eliminated. So *functionally* there is no difference.
It does not seem to me that overwhelming control is equivalent to losing
awareness of the perception whose control is overwhelmed. Are you proposing
this as the mechanism for ignoring?
She started with conflict as to which perception to control. In either
case, the conflict is eliminated. So *functionally* there is no difference.
I doubt she ever experienced any conflict.
It does not seem to me that overwhelming control is equivalent to losing
awareness of the perception whose control is overwhelmed. Are you proposing
this as the mechanism for ignoring?
I suspect the issue is one of gain. The gain is much higher on the "rescue
my baby" controlled perception than is the gain on the "avoid danger"
controlled perception. I doubt very much that she is aware of the danger to
herself in this case. This would seem to be one of those situations where
awareness is likely to be focussed strongly on controlling one perception
and all other perceptions are "outside of awareness". This situation is
still unclear to me, but my guess is that the HPCT model would incorporate
very different gains for these perceptions and that would be the only
difference.
awareness is likely to be focussed strongly on controlling one perception
and all other perceptions are "outside of awareness". This situation is
still unclear to me, but my guess is that the HPCT model would incorporate
very different gains for these perceptions and that would be the only
difference.
I just posted a reply to Bill on conflict resolution (to which anyone with
a good understanding of MOL could reply, no need for Bill to) with another
idea. The reconciliation with yours above might be: what changes the gain?
I assumed a higher level of control changes the reference level. Doesn't
make sense for a perception of staying alive, not being burned, etc. I
don't think those reference levels change.
Perhaps the mother imagines an outcome with such vividity and completeness
that there is no place in it for perceptions inconsistent with it, and
anyway perceptions of oneself no longer being alive or even of being
seriously injured are difficult to imagine. Adrenaline doesn't let you sit
still imagining things.
I wonder if ignoring has to do with control of a complex whole, and
perceptions that don't fit that whole are excluded by the PIF for that
perception. Or replaced with partially similar imagined perceptions. Like
the psychologist hearing "behavior is the control of perception" and saying
"Oh, yeah, perception governs behavior, right."
I just posted a reply to Bill on conflict resolution (to which anyone with
a good understanding of MOL could reply, no need for Bill to) with another
idea. The reconciliation with yours above might be: what changes the gain?
I assumed a higher level of control changes the reference level. Doesn't
make sense for a perception of staying alive, not being burned, etc. I
don't think those reference levels change.
In this particular case, there seems to be no need to assume that the gains
change. The gain associated with perceiving that the child is safe may
always be the higher.
Perhaps the mother imagines an outcome with such vividity and completeness
that there is no place in it for perceptions inconsistent with it, and
anyway perceptions of oneself no longer being alive or even of being
seriously injured are difficult to imagine. Adrenaline doesn't let you sit
still imagining things.
Again, I don't think any such process is necessary in this case. Whch does
not mean that it does not happen in other situations.
I wonder if ignoring has to do with control of a complex whole, and
perceptions that don't fit that whole are excluded by the PIF for that
perception. Or replaced with partially similar imagined perceptions. Like
the psychologist hearing "behavior is the control of perception" and saying
"Oh, yeah, perception governs behavior, right."
Or it may be that attention goes where the error is greatest.
In our culture, the mind and brain are thought of as two separate
entities, with the mind located inside the brain, and that somehow they
interact. To me, PCT says that the two words are not needed. The operation
of the brain/nervous system creates the appearance of an entity we call
the mind, but I think the mind is simply the operation of the hierarchical
control systems located in the brain area.
If there is no separation of brain and mind, then, under PCT:
Could consciousness be what occurs whenever an organism is actively
controlling external to the organism, and will produce outputs acting on
the environment external to the organism, given enough of an error signal?
Unconsciousness would then be whenever the organism is _primarily_
controlling its internal environment, producing external outputs
(returning to consciousness) only when extreme error signals occur
internally or externally.
Coma would occur whenever the organism is _only_ controlling its internal
environment, and even extreme error signals will not cause external
output.
Death occurs when internal controlling stops, or decreases below a point
of no return.
Sleep might be a temporary shutting down, or desensitizing, of the higher
levels of the hierarchy.
I do not know how this could be gleaned from PCT. This is an
extra-scientific matter and the epiphenomenolist thread that follows is
in no way derivable from PCT.
i.
···
Henry James Bicycles Inc (0005096370@MCIMAIL.COM) wrote:
[Hank Folson (960424)]
In our culture, the mind and brain are thought of as two separate
entities, with the mind located inside the brain, and that somehow they
interact. To me, PCT says that the two words are not needed.
is consciousness control of the side effects of behavior? for example, you unintentionally disturb someone with something you said. consciousness of the situation occurs when you address this disturbance.