Disturbing Views

[From Rick Marken (991016.1910)]

Kenny Kitzke (991015.1130EDT) --

aren't I enough for the group holding these radically
different and disturbing views about humans and their
nature and purpose? :sunglasses:

It's not your _views_ about humans, their nature and purpose
that I find disturbing but, rather, your _approach_ to learning
about these things that I find disturbing. Your approach to
learning about humans, their nature and purpose is to check
your rationalizations about humans, their nature and purpose
against textual descriptions of humans, their nature and
purpose that were written by one of the most backward of
several cultures living in the Eastern Mediterranean between
about 1000 BC and 70 AD (the religious approach). My approach
to learning about humans, their nature and purpose is to check
the behavior of working models of humans, their nature and
purpose against properly obtained observations of humans, their
nature and purpose (the scientific approach).

What I find disturbing about the religious approach is that it
is based on a fundamental fallacy: that perception alone can
reveal what is beyond perception. A simple example of this is
taking a textual declaration (such as "I am the Lord thy God") as
evidence that there is a God; a perception (the declaration) is
taken to reveal what is beyond the perception (God). Another
example is taking a spiritual experience (such as hearing God
say "Kill Isaac" or feeling the presence of the "Holy Spirit")
as evidence of a Holy Spirit. Again, a perception (hearing
voices, feeling "the spirit") is taken to reveal what is
beyond the perception (Holy Spirit).

The scientific approach starts (although not always conciously)
with a basic observation: it's all perception. A corollary
observation is that perception alone cannot reveal what is
beyond perception. The scientific method is an extremely clever
(and successful) way of getting around this problem: you _invent_
(build) models (a type of perception), determine what the model
says you will perceive if you act on the world in particular ways
(determine the predictions of the model) and then act on the world
in particular ways and see if you perceive what the model says
you will perceive; if you do, then you stick with the model and
keep testing; if you don't, then you revise the model and keep
testing.

The scientific approach to learning about the world has given us
an extremely accurate approximation (still being refined,
of course) to what is beyond our perceptions of the inanimate
world; PCT is showing us that we can also use this method to get
an extremely accurate approximation to what is beyond our
perceptions of the _animate_ world (perceptions that include
humans, their nature and purpose). And we can do it all without
jihads, inquisitions or the other forms of human degredation.

RSM

路路路

--
Richard S. Marken Phone or Fax: 310 474-0313
Life Learning Associates e-mail: rmarken@earthlink.net
http://home.earthlink.net/~rmarken/

[From Rick Marken (991016.1910)]
In a message dated 10/16/1999 7:11:58 PM US Mountain Standard Time,
rmarken@EARTHLINK.NET writes:

<< What I find disturbing about the religious approach is that it
is based on a fundamental fallacy: that perception alone can
reveal what is beyond perception. A simple example of this is
taking a textual declaration (such as "I am the Lord thy God") as
evidence that there is a God; a perception (the declaration) is
taken to reveal what is beyond the perception (God). Another
example is taking a spiritual experience (such as hearing God
say "Kill Isaac" or feeling the presence of the "Holy Spirit")
as evidence of a Holy Spirit. Again, a perception (hearing
voices, feeling "the spirit") is taken to reveal what is
beyond the perception (Holy Spirit).

The scientific approach starts (although not always conciously)
with a basic observation: it's all perception. A corollary
observation is that perception alone cannot reveal what is
beyond perception. The scientific method is an extremely clever
(and successful) way of getting around this problem: you _invent_
(build) models (a type of perception), determine what the model
says you will perceive if you act on the world in particular ways
(determine the predictions of the model) and then act on the world
in particular ways and see if you perceive what the model says
you will perceive; if you do, then you stick with the model and
keep testing; if you don't, then you revise the model and keep
testing.

The scientific approach to learning about the world has given us
an extremely accurate approximation (still being refined,
of course) to what is beyond our perceptions of the inanimate
world; PCT is showing us that we can also use this method to get
an extremely accurate approximation to what is beyond our
perceptions of the _animate_ world (perceptions that include
humans, their nature and purpose). And we can do it all without
jihads, inquisitions or the other forms of human degredation. >>

you (Rick) find it disturbing

----"religious approach is that it is based on a fundamental fallacy: that
perception alone can reveal what is beyond perception"

but What if the whole is greater than the sum of it's parts.

What if -- religion serves a purpose is or is more than rites and idols --
what if our perceptions are evolving -- we only control for what we can sense
--- If some people can sense God and the Holy Spirt -- who is to say they
are not real, just because some one else can not sense them. If I were blind
or deaf a whole lot of the world would not exsit to me. But it does not mean
just cuz I dont see or hear it -- it never existed.

An oyster may never see me, but I can see the oyster. --

Food for thought.

Mark Lazare

[From Bruce Gregory (991017.0712 EDT)]

Mark Lazare wrote:

What if -- religion serves a purpose is or is more than rites and idols --
what if our perceptions are evolving -- we only control for what
we can sense
--- If some people can sense God and the Holy Spirit -- who is to say

they

are not real, just because some one else can not sense them. If
I were blind
or deaf a whole lot of the world would not exist to me. But it
does not mean
just cuz I dont see or hear it -- it never existed.

Is suppose we should take this same approach to those who perceive voices
speaking to them--voices that no one else can hear. They _could_ be getting
messages for extra-terrestrials or from God. The group that committed
suicide so that their souls could escape to the UFO associated with the
comet might simply have been more evolved than the rest of us.

Bruce Gregory

In a message dated 10/17/1999 4:23:45 AM US Mountain Standard Time,
bruce_gregory@USA.NET writes:

(Mark-> What if -- religion serves a purpose is or is more than rites and
idols -- what if our perceptions are evolving -- we only control for what we
can sense --- If some people can sense God and the Holy Sprit -- who is to
say they are not real, just because someone else cannot sense them. If I
were blind or deaf a whole lot of the world would not exist to me. But it
does not mean just cuz I don't see or hear it -- it never existed. An oyster
may never see me, but I can see the oyster. -- <-Mark)

<< I suppose we should take this same approach to those who perceive voices
speaking to them--voices that no one else can hear. They _could_ be getting
messages for extra-terrestrials or from God. The group that committed
suicide so that their souls could escape to the UFO associated with the
comet might simply have been more evolved than the rest of us. Bruce
Gregory >>

The above is a good example of how one can miss forest, because of the trees.

Most of the people in the world are not suicidal and/or psychotic. Most of
the people on this planet -- have a feeling or belief of something spiritual
- God, Buddha, ancestors, Mother Earth.

I will admit some religious are suicidal and/or psychotic, just like some
scientist are suicidal and/or psychotic. Just because I can Identify one
short-sided and narrow minded
person claming to do science in one little area, does not mean all scientist
are as limited as the one I am thinking about.

There is a thread going on about a 5 level Hierarchy -- that is an approach
we need -- because not all living things on Earth have the same Number of
levels. Also not all people operate with the same number of levels --

As a human I can only perceive a small spectrum of light -- I cannot perceive
radio waves but I can thru science, acquire a device that can receive radio
waves, and transform them into meaningful information, I can perceive in
forms of sound.

If there is more to this universe than I can sense, some where in it may just
be a being that can sense me, but that I cannot "see." Much like "An oyster
may never see me, but I can see the oyster. -- <-Mark)

All things are possible, not all thing are probable, but you don't have to
see to believe.
It is the belief you test for or have faith in, that moves you in the
direction to find what you are looking for.

Mark

[From Bruce Gregory (991017.1530 EDT)]

Rick Marken (991017.1200 PDT)

My critique of religion is not a critique of religious
So these people are taking perception alone to reveal
what is beyond (and causing) perception. There is no modeling;
no prediction of what would be perceived if the model (God
hypothesis in this case) were correct and no tests (acting on
the world) to see if the predicted perceptions occur. It's this
religious approach to understanding that I find disturbing, not
the religious perceptions (or conclusions) per se.

My take is slightly different. In order to understand something (a
scientific model, a religious belief), it is helpful to know what problem
the topic represents a suggested solution to. Religious beliefs solve one
set of problems, scientific models a quite different set. I maintain that
arguing with fundamentalists about the age of the universe is like trying to
teach a pig to sing. Fundamentalists are _not interested_ in the age of the
universe _except_ insofar as it seems to conflict what they are interested
in, getting to heaven. My modest suggestion is to agree with the
fundamentalists that no one knows how the universe began because no one,
save possibly God, was there to observe the beginning. As scientists we
simply accept that we will never know how anything "really" is. All we can
study is how things _appear_ to be. The universe may indeed really be only
6,000 years old, but the universe _appears_ to be 12 billion years old. If
you are interested in appearances, I can discuss them with you. But if you
have received the truth directly from God, I certainly will not argue with
you.

Bruce Gregory

[From Rick Marken (991017.1200 PDT)]

Mark Lazare (991017) --

What if -- religion serves a purpose or is more than rites
and idols

Religion _is_ a purpose (a controlled system concept perception)
that is often made up of the lower level program (rites) and
configuration (idols) perceptions you mention.

If some people can sense God and the Holy Spirt -- who is to
say they are not real, just because some one else can not
sense them.

Certainly not me. Perhaps I was not clear. For me, perception
_is_ reality; it is all we know. If a fellow perceives a deep
voice saying "Kill your first born son" then that perception
is real; the fellow really did hear the voice. Same is true
for people who see chariots of fire in the sky, hear mediums
channeling the voice of Uncle Albert, feel deep wisdom in a Zen
koan or see the meter needle pointing to 58.3. All of these
are real perceptions.

My critique of religion is not a critique of religious
perceptions. I think religious perceptions are very interesting.
My critique of religion is a critique of the religious approach
to dealing with these perceptions. As I said in my previous post,
the religious approach is based on a fundamental fallacy: that
perception alone can reveal what is beyond perception.

For example, I enjoy reading biblical stories; they are
fascinating religious perceptions. I have also heard people
say that these stories were written (or inspired) by God;
these people are another fascinating perception. Apparently,
there are people who believe that the biblical stories
perceptions are, indeed, caused (in some way) by a God. They
seem to believe this because certain perceptions simply _exist_;
perceptions of people (including people in the biblical stories
themselves) saying that these stories were written (or inspired)
by God. So these people are taking perception alone to reveal
what is beyond (and causing) perception. There is no modeling;
no prediction of what would be perceived if the model (God
hypothesis in this case) were correct and no tests (acting on
the world) to see if the predicted perceptions occur. It's this
religious approach to understanding that I find disturbing, not
the religious perceptions (or conclusions) per se.

An oyster may never see me, but I can see the oyster. --

Food for thought.

Yes. I love oysters!

Of course, the oyster has only oyster-type perceptions. But, if
the oyster were capable of doing science (PCT in particular) --
which would mean being able to have many more levels of
perception than your typical oyster -- than it would be able to
do experiments to see if a model of a human agent (the Mark
hypothesis) was needed to explain its perceptions.

RSM

路路路

--
Richard S. Marken Phone or Fax: 310 474-0313
Life Learning Associates e-mail: rmarken@earthlink.net
http://home.earthlink.net/~rmarken/

[From Bruce Abbott (991017.1545 EST)]

Bruce Gregory (991017.1530 EDT) --

As scientists we
simply accept that we will never know how anything "really" is. All we can
study is how things _appear_ to be. The universe may indeed really be only
6,000 years old, but the universe _appears_ to be 12 billion years old. If
you are interested in appearances, I can discuss them with you. But if you
have received the truth directly from God, I certainly will not argue with
you.

Interesting. Galileo was given permission by the Church to discuss the
Copernican system so long as he made it clear that he was only discussing
_appearances_ and not proposing that this described the actual nature of the
universe.

Bruce A.

[From Bruce Gregory (991017.1822 EDT)]

Bruce Abbott (991017.1545 EST)

Interesting. Galileo was given permission by the Church to discuss the
Copernican system so long as he made it clear that he was only discussing
_appearances_ and not proposing that this described the actual
nature of the
universe.

As you can tell, I've learned from Galileo's experience. With hindsight,
Galileo was unable to quit when he was ahead.

Bruce Gregory

[Mark Lazare (101799)]

MOL for Disturbing Views---

The Hows and Whys, related to heirarchies. In the MOL, if you want to find
out a motive, goal, desire, proposes, or intention, you ask the question;
WHY?. This is going up a level.

If you what to find and appropriate output, you as HOW? This will take you
down a level.

How things work is the realm of Science. Scientific Methods explain HOW
things work not WHY they do. Why they work is assigning a purpose to the
device, machine or living control system. This becomes philosophy.

I believe it is important not to confuse science with philosophy.

How the universe came to be, and that some of it's own matter ended up asking
questions about it's self is science.

Why the universe came into being, and Why I can ask questions about my
existence is a philosophic Question, one that the System Level of My personal
Living perceptual control system can't seem to go up any more levels, but
arrives at a purpose somehow. That to me is mind boggling.

Where is the Reference coming from at the highest level in the hierarchy?
Any conjectures anyone?

Mark Lazare

[From Rick Marken (991017.2210)]

Bruce Gregory (991017.1530 EDT)--

Religious beliefs solve one set of problems, scientific models
a quite different set.

I agree that that's the usual way the difference is framed. But
I am arguing that this distinction is false; religious beliefs and
scientific models are aimed at solving the same problem: making
sense of our perceptual experience. Science and religion don't
address different problems; they address the same problem in
different ways. The religious way is not as good as the scientific
way because it is based on a fundamental misconception -- one
that is rather like the behaviorist misconception about behavior --
which is that perception alone, sans models, sans prediction,
sans tests, sans everything but brute force -- reveals what
is beyond perception.

As scientists we simply accept that we will never know how
anything "really" is. All we can study is how things _appear_
to be.

I assume you mean that all we can study is how our actions affect
our perceptions (the "appearances"). My point is that this is true
of _everyone_, including religionists. All anyone has access to is
what you call "appearances" (what I call perception). The power of
science is that it provides a way (using models, predictions and
tests to determine whether one's actions produce the predicted
perceptions) to approximate, rather amazingly closely, how things
"really" are out there on the other side of our perception.

My modest suggestion is to agree with the fundamentalists that
no one knows how the universe began because no one, save possibly
God, was there to observe the beginning.

And even then all we would have is our perception, not the
reality. We don't even know if there is a reality called
"beginning of the universe" behind any perception, even a
perception that we might describe as "beginning of the universe".

I know how frustrating it can be to talk with religionists; it's
really very similar to (and probably as hopeless as) talking with
behaviorists. But I think it's important to trying to sort it out
(just as is important to try to sort it out with behaviorists);
you might not see much progress in your lifetime but at least
you are spending your life working toward a better world -- even
if that better world is far in the future.

Best

Rick

路路路

---
Richard S. Marken Phone or Fax: 310 474-0313
Life Learning Associates e-mail: rmarken@earthlink.net
http://home.earthlink.net/~rmarken/

[From Bruce Gregory (991018.0632 EDT)]

Mark Lazare (101799)

How things work is the realm of Science. Scientific Methods explain HOW
things work not WHY they do.

I respectfully disagree. Science answers "why" by providing models. How is
only a step on the way to why.

Why they work is assigning a purpose to the
device, machine or living control system. This becomes philosophy.

The tides occur twice a day because of the rotation of the Earth and the
gravitational attraction between the Earth and the sun and moon. This is the
scientific "why", but the tides have no purpose. Assigning a purpose to the
tides is probably animism.

I believe it is important not to confuse science with philosophy.

I couldn't agree more.

How the universe came to be, and that some of it's own matter
ended up asking
questions about it's self is science.

Why the universe came into being, and Why I can ask questions about my
existence is a philosophic Question, one that the System Level of
My personal
Living perceptual control system can't seem to go up any more levels, but
arrives at a purpose somehow. That to me is mind boggling.

It's called negative feedback. I agree it's mind boggling.

Where is the Reference coming from at the highest level in the hierarchy?
Any conjectures anyone?

Reorganization.

Bruce Gregory

[From Bruce Gregory (991018.0700 EDT)]

Rick Marken (991017.2210)

Bruce Gregory (991017.1530 EDT)--

> Religious beliefs solve one set of problems, scientific models
> a quite different set.

I agree that that's the usual way the difference is framed. But
I am arguing that this distinction is false; religious beliefs and
scientific models are aimed at solving the same problem: making
sense of our perceptual experience. Science and religion don't
address different problems; they address the same problem in
different ways.

O.K. But only in the sense that all higher or control loops address the same
problem--keeping intrinsic error low. At least this is the way I see it.

The religious way is not as good as the scientific
way because it is based on a fundamental misconception -- one
that is rather like the behaviorist misconception about behavior --
which is that perception alone, sans models, sans prediction,
sans tests, sans everything but brute force -- reveals what
is beyond perception.

> As scientists we simply accept that we will never know how
> anything "really" is. All we can study is how things _appear_
> to be.

I assume you mean that all we can study is how our actions affect
our perceptions (the "appearances"). My point is that this is true
of _everyone_, including religionists. All anyone has access to is
what you call "appearances" (what I call perception).

Yes, but some people have hierarchies they cannot examine without the danger
of major breakdowns.

The power of
science is that it provides a way (using models, predictions and
tests to determine whether one's actions produce the predicted
perceptions) to approximate, rather amazingly closely, how things
"really" are out there on the other side of our perception.

Our models predict quite well, whether they do so because they resemble boss
reality very closely or not is, of course, only speculative. further, it is
not empirical, but rather a matter of "faith".

> My modest suggestion is to agree with the fundamentalists that
> no one knows how the universe began because no one, save possibly
> God, was there to observe the beginning.

And even then all we would have is our perception, not the
reality. We don't even know if there is a reality called
"beginning of the universe" behind any perception, even a
perception that we might describe as "beginning of the universe".

Quite so.

I know how frustrating it can be to talk with religionists; it's
really very similar to (and probably as hopeless as) talking with
behaviorists. But I think it's important to trying to sort it out
(just as is important to try to sort it out with behaviorists);
you might not see much progress in your lifetime but at least
you are spending your life working toward a better world -- even
if that better world is far in the future.

I'll leave this assignment to you!

Bruce Gregory

[From Rick Marken (991018.0900)]

Mark Lazare (101799)--

I believe it is important not to confuse science with
philosophy.

I agree. Science is what philosophy (and religion) become
when they mature. I think there is no longer any more reason
to try to achieve an understanding of human nature through
philosophy than there is to try to achieve such an
understanding through religion.

Why the universe came into being, and Why I can ask questions
about my existence is a philosophic Question

A philosophic question is just an unanswerable question.
"Why did the universe come into being" is probably a philosophic
question in this sense (it's also a poor question because
it assumes that the universe _did_ come into being; but the
universe may have always been there). But "Why I can ask
questions about my existence" is certainly not a philosophic
question; it's a scientific question. We already know part of
the answer: you can ask these questions because you have a brain
that can produce perceptions like "being philosophical" that
can be controlled by taking actions like asking "Why can I
ask questions". That is, we can answer such questions in terms
of PCT.

Where is the Reference coming from at the highest level in the
hierarchy? Any conjectures anyone?

Neurons in the outer layer of the cerebral cortex?

Maybe what you are asking is "What sets the reference signal
for our highest level controlled perceptions". In the
current HPCT model, the highest level controlled perceptions
are system concepts. So what you are asking may be "What
sets the reference for a control system controlling a system
concept like one's religious belief? Why does one person
end up having a reference for being Christian, another a
reference for being Jewish, another a reference for being
Muslim, etc?" I think the answer is: reorganization.

Reorganization works on all levels of the hierarchy
simultaneously; but its most obvious role at the highest
level of the hierarchy is setting the references for that
level. I say it's obvious based on the following observation:
virtually every person I know has adopted references for system
concept perceptions that are the same as or very similar to
those of their parents or the majority in their society. The
people who control for being Christian almost invariably come
from Christian families; practicing Muslims come from Muslim
families; practicing Jews come from Jewish families. I know
that this isn't 100% true; we sometimes get practicing humanists
from religious families and practicing religionists from
humanist families. But the overwhelming trend is for like to
beget like when it comes to system concept references.

I think this occurs because people develop a hierarchy of
control (via reorganization) that produces the least overall
error. When a person starts to perceive the world in terms of
system concepts (probably around age 10 or so) s/he will probably
very quickly converge to controlling for a value of system concept
that is similar to that controlled by the parent(s) (ie. develop
system concept references that are similar to the parents'
references). This convergence is expected (given the current
model of reorganization) because controlling system concepts
at the parental reference level will produce the least conflict
(error) with the parents. I think these system concept references
are generally maintained throughout life because they also lead
to the least conflict with the rest of society.

Best

Rick

路路路

---
Richard S. Marken Phone or Fax: 310 474-0313
Life Learning Associates mailto: rmarken@earthlink.net
http://home.earthlink.net/~rmarken

[From Bruce Gregory (991018.1219 EDT)]

Rick Marken (991018.0900)

I think this occurs because people develop a hierarchy of
control (via reorganization) that produces the least overall
error. When a person starts to perceive the world in terms of
system concepts (probably around age 10 or so) s/he will probably
very quickly converge to controlling for a value of system concept
that is similar to that controlled by the parent(s) (i.e.. develop
system concept references that are similar to the parents'
references). This convergence is expected (given the current
model of reorganization) because controlling system concepts
at the parental reference level will produce the least conflict
(error) with the parents. I think these system concept references
are generally maintained throughout life because they also lead
to the least conflict with the rest of society.

I agree. I would also add that peers are sometimes even more important
than parents in offering potential solutions to problems associated with
intrinsic error. The reason the industrial world is suffering a
"breakdown of morality" is that modern technology provides a large
number of potential solutions to the problem of reducing intrinsic
error. The most tightly organized societies (the Amish, for example)
offer few solutions. In these societies, it takes a great deal of effort
to blaze new paths.

Bruce Gregory