doubt anti matter and memory [DAMM]

[Jim Dundon 2003.04.08.11.43 EDST]

I believe everyone on CSGnet is pretty much convinced that everything we experience, all percepts, enter through our senses. It is themed over and over throughout the writings.

In rereading some of Bill Powers’ writings I came across a real gem, “a percept is a unit of experience” I love it! On many occasions Bill points out the fact that were there no sensory inputs we would cease to exist.

On several occasions I have attempted to remain perfectly still as I lay in bed and in doing so, if I do it long enough, I begin to realize that the contours of my body, the shape of my legs and toes and arms exists only as memories. I have no continuing evidence that my memories are true. If I lay there long enough the memories begin to dim and I have to work at maintaining a concept, percept of them. I realize when this happens that in order for me to keep out doubt about the shape of things I must move. After a period of time I begin to look for a reinforcement of my memory, and if I move, my doubts are removed and my memories are reinforced. And I have satisfied a desire.

The notion of reinforcement in this case is my naming of that unit of experience. In this case is reinforcement a percept? Is it okay in PCT circles to refer to this percept as reinforcement. Or is that a no-no. It is something I did because I wanted to, not because the environment stimulated me. It is more like seeking perception than controlling perception. Bill has said in his writings that it is wants and desires, intent and purpose which motivate action. In this case I sought reinforcement.

So the question is; what does PCT consider a doubt to be?.

Is a doubt a percept or an anti-percept?

When something matters to us is doubt antimatter?

When physicists ran out of things to do and they began to doubt whether there was a future for them [no new sensory input to be discovered which would ensure their existence as physicists] they discovered antimatter. In fact there is exactly just as much antimatter as matter in the universe. Seem to be just as much doubt as certainty. How convenient. Or is it something that is always true?

Is there as much anti-percept as percept in the universe?

Could we have certainty without doubt? Which comes first? Or do they coexist? Do they exist simultaneously, sequentially or alternately?

Can I be an autonomous doubter? Certainly? I’m not sure.

I know I matter but do I antimatter?

If I test for a controlled variable am I considered by the other controller as an antimatterer; the devil, or his advocate?

“A PERCEPT IS A UNIT OF EXPERIENCE”, WHAT A GEM, I LOVE IT!!

Jim D

[From Bryan Thalhammer (2006.04.08.1837 CDT)]

Jim,

Your message is interesting. But while I do not generally object to different ways of describing the variables involved in perceptual control, I have some questions at least about your understanding of the theory. Just so you know, I have done research in human behavior using the theory, based on a replication of Dick Robertson's work on the Self as a Control System.

1. "Convinced": Could you tell me what you mean by that term and what is the basis for your belief that everyone here is "convinced" that experience is sense-based. That kinda forces an information processing input-output shape to PCT, whereas *control of perception* is what most characterizes the writings. I think that is important, and now that I have prompted what I think is important, could you comment on both how a reader is convinced and how sense-based inputs equal experience?

2. Percept: I agree that Bill has articulated a gem, that being B:CP. I would have to return to it to see his definition of percept. But as I wrote above, experience is not just the inputs, it is the cycle of control that seems to be more apt a description of experience than just the sensory inputs. True, if the sensory input were turned off, control would come to a halt. But that is not because sensory inputs are driving the cycle, but that the combination of input, reference and error signal are together what could be stopped cold if sensory input were blocked.

3. Reinforcement: This term carries with it a lot of baggage that can get twirled round about in the terminology Bill, Rick, Dick, Tim and many others have worked out to explain how control of perception occurs. I think you might want to look into using reference signal.

4. Environment and stimulation: Here you are way off, where you say that the environment stimulates action or behavior or whatever. That is a behaviorist or info processing view that an input of sensation, data or program can cause behavior. Here you want to think about using perceptual signal which is a combination of environmental energies, control output energies, and random energies. And what happens is that as the perceptual signal is compared with the reference signal, it is not the same (what is wanted), and the error (difference between the two) becomes an output signal that goes into the environment of that comparison cycle (control system), making changes that come back in part as a perceptual input and round we go again.

5. Wants, desires: I think that this is a metaphor that Bill was using, and that metaphor is for reference signals set by other/upper control systems' output signals. Basically, when a perceptual signal does not match the reference signal for that perception, we give forth effort to make it so.

6. Doubt: You have to define doubt a bit better than that. And the issue about antimatter and matter I think goes beyond currently accepted physics, that is, I think there is no evidence for a 50/50 spread of matter and antimatter, at least sitting there on the fence post across the street. Then with certainty and doubt you lose me philosophically in your riffs, but I am sure you can take another swat at this and address it scientifically?

Cheers,

--Bryan

···

[Jim Dundon 2003.04.08.11.43 EDST]
I believe everyone on CSGnet is pretty much convinced that everything we experience, all percepts, enter through our senses. It is themed over and over throughout the writings.
In rereading some of Bill Powers' writings I came across a real gem, "a percept is a unit of experience" I love it! On many occasions Bill points out the fact that were there no sensory inputs we would cease to exist.
On several occasions I have attempted to remain perfectly still as I lay in bed and in doing so, if I do it long enough, I begin to realize that the contours of my body, the shape of my legs and toes and arms exists only as memories. I have no continuing evidence that my memories are true. If I lay there long enough the memories begin to dim and I have to work at maintaining a concept, percept of them. I realize when this happens that in order for me to keep out doubt about the shape of things I must move. After a period of time I begin to look for a reinforcement of my memory, and if I move, my doubts are removed and my memories are reinforced. And I have satisfied a desire.
The notion of reinforcement in this case is my naming of that unit of experience. In this case is reinforcement a percept? Is it okay in PCT circles to refer to this percept as reinforcement. Or is that a no-no. It is something I did because I wanted to, not because the environment stimulated me. It is more like seeking perception than controlling perception. Bill has said in his writings that it is wants and desires, intent and purpose which motivate action. In this case I sought reinforcement.
So the question is; what does PCT consider a doubt to be?.
Is a doubt a percept or an anti-percept?
When something matters to us is doubt antimatter?
When physicists ran out of things to do and they began to doubt whether there was a future for them [no new sensory input to be discovered which would ensure their existence as physicists] they discovered antimatter. In fact there is exactly just as much antimatter as matter in the universe. Seem to be just as much doubt as certainty. How convenient. Or is it something that is always true?
Is there as much anti-percept as percept in the universe?
Could we have certainty without doubt? Which comes first? Or do they coexist? Do they exist simultaneously, sequentially or alternately?
Can I be an autonomous doubter? Certainly? I'm not sure.
I know I matter but do I antimatter?
If I test for a controlled variable am I considered by the other controller as an antimatterer; the devil, or his advocate?
"A PERCEPT IS A UNIT OF EXPERIENCE", WHAT A GEM, I LOVE IT!!
Jim D

[Martin Taylor 2006.04.09.11.44]

[Jim Dundon 2003.04.08.11.43 EDST]

So the question is; what does PCT consider a doubt to be?.

A very interesting question, which ties in to several threads that have never been satisfactorily resolved over the years.

Is a doubt a percept or an anti-percept?

Since it's something you perceive, it's a perception. That much is clear.

But of what is it a perception? That's the interesting question.

Doubt isn't a perception of a state of the outer world. Perceptions of the outer world have soem value, which is the current perceive state of the relevant aspect of the outer world. As seen by an external analyst, that value might be uncertain, in the sense that it isn't always the same for a given "true" condition of the perceived state. But that undetainty doesn't exist in the perception itself. The perception that is doubted is not the perception of the doubt.

The previous sentence holds a clue: "the perception that is doubted" implies that at least one input into the function (operation) that produces doubt is itself a perception. But it can't be the only input, because if it were, the value of the "doubt" perception would be a function of the value of the peception doubted, which is silly.

So at least two other perceptions must contribute to the perception of doubt. Presumably those two (or more) contributory perceptions have soem relation to each other; notably, they say different things about some particular "true" state of the world. In plainer words, there is counter-evidence opposing the "factual" correctness of some perception.

For example, imagine that you can see an apparently solid object nearby (it's really a hologram or a reflection in half a spherical mirror). You go to pick it up, but your hand goes right through it. Your vision tells you that the "true" state of the outer world includes the object. Your haptic sense tells you that it doesn't. There is a conflict, and one (or both) of the perceptions apparently ought to be doubted.

I say "ought to be" from the viewpoint of an external analyst, not from the viewpoint of the observer, who may or may not perceive doubt, depending on whether the implications of the two perceptions actually are compared. The example situation is more clear-cut than most situations in which we perceive doubt. Either there is an object or there isn't. Either one's eyes or one's haptic sense is deceptive.

The interesting situations occur when one or more of the conflicting perceptions are generated in imagination. One may imagine that one is going to serve an ace in tennis, but one also remebers (imagines) that in the past one has seldom succeeded in serving an ace against this opponent. There are conflicting perceptions of "serving an ace" and "failing to serve an ace". Some perceptual function must take both of those perceptions, which "should be" identical, and from their difference, perceive something we call doubt. If the perceptions had been identical ("I always serve an ace when I want to"), the corresponding perception would be called "confidence". It's just a different value level for the same perception that compares two or more other perceptions.

If only the imagined perception of "serving an ace" were available, there could be no perception of doubt. The serve might not in fact produce an ace, but that would simply (in PCT) correspond to "error" in the relevant control function(s), which might be correctible for future serves.

I have no proper or definitive answer about what "doubt" means in PCT, but I am clear (without doubt:-) that it involves the perception of mismatch among perceptions that "ought to be" the same.

On another occasion I might be equally clear (again wothout doubt) that something different is involved. That I say this implies that I now have doubt, but only because I can compare the last two sentences.

I hope this either is satisfactory or provokes useful comment -- other than about the PCT-sloppy use of terms like "implies" and "ought to be".

Martin

[Jim Dundon 2006.04.10.0945EDST]

···

----- Original Message ----- From: "B. Thalhammer" <bryanth@SOLTEC.NET>
To: <CSGNET@LISTSERV.UIUC.EDU>
Sent: Saturday, April 08, 2006 7:37 PM
Subject: Re: doubt anti matter and memory [DAMM]

[From Bryan Thalhammer (2006.04.08.1837 CDT)]

Jim,

Your message is interesting. But while I do not generally object to different ways of describing the variables involved in perceptual control, I have some questions at least about your understanding of the theory. Just so you know, I have done research in human behavior using the theory, based on a replication of Dick Robertson's work on the Self as a Control System.

1. "Convinced": Could you tell me what you mean by that term and what is the basis for your belief that everyone here is "convinced" that experience is sense-based. That kinda forces an information processing input-output shape to PCT, whereas *control of perception* is what most characterizes the writings. I think that is important, and now that I have prompted what I think is important, could you comment on both how a reader is convinced and how sense-based inputs equal experience?

Do you mean how a reader is convinced, or how I know a reader is convinced or why I believe a reader is convinced? What I said was that I believe a reader is convinced not I know. However, to take it a little further and perhaps a little deeper and maybe a little more scientifically, you are correct the only thing I could be relatively sure of when I picked up the book and read it is that my visual sensory inputs confirmed my tactile sensory inputs that while I was doing was the thing I have always referred to as reading a book. I assumed the book actually was written by Bill Powers, I had no way of knowing for sure of course. I assumed he meant what he said when he wrote it. I had no proof of that, of course and if he did meet when he wrote it, maybe he doesn't mean it today. Maybe it was a practical joke. Maybe it was testing the world for a control variable. Maybe nobody on CSGnet is convinced of it. In reality I convinced myself that PCTers were in accord on that and I probably did it to fulfill some reference signal from some higher level in the hierarchy that said something like let's be efficient in this e-mail and perhaps even higher levels that said seek out some intelligent relationships to make your life more meaningful. Nevertheless when I picked up the book[as evidenced by my tactile and visual sensory inputs] and read it, I assumed, incorporated, believed, that the following "experiencing naming assemblings" [ENA's] were indicative of the notion that experience is sensory based; that current experience is a combination and recombination of remembered and current sensory inputs. I don't see how that necessarily forces an input output shape, Since all of this, the experiencing, sensing, naming is, at some scale, simultaneous Maybe I'm wrong. Let's take a look. I will quote extensively from Bill Powers' "Making Sense Of Behavior".

Page 6: but what is perception. It's only what our senses tell us about the world.

Page 20: [a criticism of any other explanation] if you will attend once again to that hand you may notice that we have been ignoring a problem if you can't see your perceptions but you can see your hand, how do you know there is a hand in there? I mean literally how?..... you must have some way of knowing about the hand directly, that doesn't depend on neural signals! If you agree that this is true, you will be in good company; even some scientists believe that we can have knowledge of things outside us without having to rely on neural signals. This of course is a great mystery because when we study other people, THEY SEEM TO DEPEND ENTIRELY ON THE PREENCE OF NEURAL SIGNALS TO PERCEIVE THINGS OUTSIDE THEM. If a person's optic nerve ceases to function for any reason that person becomes blind. That person can hold up the hand and see it's skin fingernails, and wrinkles without using neural signals. But apparently, we can. That is extremely odd. It is so odd, in fact, THAT WE HAVE TO CONCLUDE THAT IT IS WRONG.. What's wrong? The idea that we can know about anything outside us without the aid of neural signals. Therefore let's just except that even our own perception works the way it seems to work when urologist poke around inside people's brains: no neural signals no perceptions

page 21: when you look at your hand, you're already looking at them. You're directly experiencing the signals in your brain that represent the world outside you. There is no second way to know about the skin, the wrinkles, the fingernails, the Palm, and so on. There is only one way, through neural signals, AND YOUR LOOKING AT THEM.

Page 23: Perception, is simply the world of experience. [This can also be said in reverse order]

Page 24: since the world we experience IS the world of perception.........

Page 25: since the world we experience is the world of perception..........

Page 25: at the same time, knowing that all experience is experience of neural signals, we are explaining how we control things, and why controlling seems to us the way it seems, and how we can be making up models and theories about controlling.

A friend of mine developed a blood clot in his brain stem which left him paralyzed in every muscle with the exception of a few chest and facial muscles. In a few months he went crazy and died. His lack of sensory input disconnected him from the world. And caused him to cease to exist. His loss of opportunity to control deprived him of the opportunity to be alive, to be, to be experiencing, to be an experiencing naming entity and he, himself, disappeared from my visual and tactile world.

2. Percept: I agree that Bill has articulated a gem, that being B:CP. I would have to return to it to see his definition of percept.

At this time I cannot find the page but you can be relatively sure that my memory is good here that somewhere he says "a percept is a unit of experience" when I find the page I will note it. There has been a lot of discussion about the definition of behavior. It has been given a very narrow application in PCT. As I read I can see that the word "action" has also been given a more narrow meaning in PCT than it has elsewhere. As has been evident in some of the posts this has created some problems. At some point Hank Folson called behavior the Phlogiston of PCT. PCT addresses these problems by limiting the degrees of freedom in terming. This is of course the scientific method. It is essential that any theory discount much of what we find in order to maintain its integrity. These are the limitations of words B:CP is the main thrust of PCT. And I don't to that fact one iota. The statement that a percept is a unit of experience is more meaningful to me than to others at this time is because my web site is about experiencing naming acts ENA's. It is also, because of its lack of vagueness and disputability, and because it doesn't require a reduction in degrees of freedom it is a more perfect statement. Bill has given me something wonderful to work with, and I'm grateful Thank you Bill!

But as I wrote above,
experience is not just the inputs, it is the cycle of

control that seems to be more apt a description of experience than just the sensory inputs.

I never said that. But somehow you heard it.
You are saying it now, I don't see where you said it above; nor did I mean to omit, or discount, that fact.

True, if the sensory input were turned off, control

would come to a halt. But that is not because sensory inputs are driving the cycle, but that the combination of input, reference and error signal are together what could be stopped cold if sensory input were blocked.
3. Reinforcement: This term carries with it a lot of baggage that can get twirled round about in the terminology Bill, Rick, Dick, Tim and many others have worked out to explain how control of perception occurs. I think you might want to look into using reference signal.

The word reinforcement is a perception. I do not find it incumbent upon me to crusade for its abolition. I feel confident in my ability to use the word within the context of PCT other than a target for attack. That is why I chose the example that I did in describing myself laying motionless on the bed, closing my eyes, and attempting to prove to myself that I have toes, hands, etc.. There comes a point in time, quickly if you face it, that you realize that the only evidence of the existence of any of these things is faith and memory. Unless there is tactile or visual confirmation, the belief is just that a belief, a memory, unsupported by tactile or visual confirmation. I do not have a political or emotional sense of error in using the word reinforcement when I talk about what I do by wiggling my toes. If at some point in time I doubt that I have surface contours to my body I can reinforce the belief by twitching my finger or opening my mouth or some other form of movement. I am not committed to completely eliminating the word reinforcement. I can of course in time acquire the skills of working without it if this is required for participation in PCT discussions. But the manner in which I used it looks to me like I was in an isolated closed loop situation and that is why I chose it. I don't know why anyone would feel threatened by its use in this manner, unless of course some higher-level system set a reference level of "don't use". There are times when I doubt things and in a very autonomous manner, a very closed loop the matter, all by myself, reinforce the belief. It looks to me like all of the rubber band experiments and computer programs could very well be considered, when repeated, as a reinforcement by the scientist that his assumption of yesterday is true today everywhere at all times. Unless of course it is against some higher-level system to doubt.

4. Environment and stimulation: Here you are way off, where you say that the environment stimulates action or behavior or whatever

That is what you heard, that is not what I said. What I said was "it is something [reinforce a memory] I did because I wanted to, not because the environment stimulated me. This is almost the opposite of what you "heard" me say, what reference signals prompted that hearing? In addition, if I want to increase my degrees of freedom and not be restricted by a higher level system I might inform the higher level system that I would like to call that condition, of the being in doubt and wanting reinforcement, an environment, an environment in which I would like to stimulate a response in order to see if my memory was correct. Of course if the higher-level system says no I will just have to go with the flow. To me words are labels, experiencing naming tags. A reinforcement by any other name is still a reinforcement unless of course there is a sacred system which denies that. I do not sacredize terming unless it is necessary to do so to save my neck. Sacredized terming is part of the process of turf building as pointed out by Brenda Dervin and Jerome Bruner and Hilgartner and others. PCT calls attention to a serious omission by behavioral theorists. It is never going to go away as long as people want the complete picture. And since it is a fact it could always be rediscovered.

That is a

behaviorist or info processing view that an input of sensation, data or program can cause behavior.

I was not saying that. I was saying that my behavior was a choice to reinforce a memory. I did it alone I was not stimulated by a thing in the environment. Unless of course as I said we wish to consider a condition of doubts the environment. This is a scientific statement unless of course a higher system says "no-no"

Here you want to think about using

perceptual signal which is a combination of environmental energies, control output energies, and random energies. And what happens is that as the perceptual signal is compared with the reference signal, it is not the same (what is wanted), and the error (difference between the two) becomes an output signal that goes into the environment of that comparison cycle (control system), making changes that come back in part as a perceptual input and round we go again.

As in the use or non-use of the word reinforcement! Shall we dance?

5. Wants, desires: I think that this is a metaphor that Bill was using,

I don't think they want or a desire is a metaphor unless we want or desire a metaphor.

and that metaphor is for reference signals set by other/upper control systems' output signals. Basically, when a perceptual signal does not match the reference signal for that perception, we give forth effort to make it so.

Like in reinforcement?

6. Doubt: You have to define doubt a bit better than that. And the issue

Let's see what other experiencing namings [percepts] I might associate with doubt: Anxiety, fear, suspicion, not sure, uncertain, kind of wonder, guilt, lack of sensory input.

about antimatter and matter I think goes beyond currently accepted physics, that is, I think there is no evidence for a 50/50 spread of matter and antimatter, at least sitting there on the fence post across the street. Then with certainty and doubt you lose me philosophically in your riffs, but I am sure you can take another swat at this and address it scientifically?

Thanks for the encouragement.
Forget the riffs, I do a little weirdy wording sometimes, probably a reference signal from some too high a system, gotta send up some data, or reorganize or somethin.

How'm I. doin?

Thank you for your precious time.

Jim D.

Cheers,

--Bryan

[Jim Dundon 2003.04.08.11.43 EDST]
I believe everyone on CSGnet is pretty much convinced that everything we experience, all percepts, enter through our senses. It is themed over and over throughout the writings.
In rereading some of Bill Powers' writings I came across a real gem, "a percept is a unit of experience" I love it! On many occasions Bill points out the fact that were there no sensory inputs we would cease to exist.
On several occasions I have attempted to remain perfectly still as I lay in bed and in doing so, if I do it long enough, I begin to realize that the contours of my body, the shape of my legs and toes and arms exists only as memories. I have no continuing evidence that my memories are true. If I lay there long enough the memories begin to dim and I have to work at maintaining a concept, percept of them. I realize when this happens that in order for me to keep out doubt about the shape of things I must move. After a period of time I begin to look for a reinforcement of my memory, and if I move, my doubts are removed and my memories are reinforced. And I have satisfied a desire.
The notion of reinforcement in this case is my naming of that unit of experience. In this case is reinforcement a percept? Is it okay in PCT circles to refer to this percept as reinforcement. Or is that a no-no. It is something I did because I wanted to, not because the environment stimulated me. It is more like seeking perception than controlling perception. Bill has said in his writings that it is wants and desires, intent and purpose which motivate action. In this case I sought reinforcement.
So the question is; what does PCT consider a doubt to be?.
Is a doubt a percept or an anti-percept?
When something matters to us is doubt antimatter?
When physicists ran out of things to do and they began to doubt whether there was a future for them [no new sensory input to be discovered which would ensure their existence as physicists] they discovered antimatter. In fact there is exactly just as much antimatter as matter in the universe. Seem to be just as much doubt as certainty. How convenient. Or is it something that is always true?
Is there as much anti-percept as percept in the universe?
Could we have certainty without doubt? Which comes first? Or do they coexist? Do they exist simultaneously, sequentially or alternately?
Can I be an autonomous doubter? Certainly? I'm not sure.
I know I matter but do I antimatter?
If I test for a controlled variable am I considered by the other controller as an antimatterer; the devil, or his advocate? "A PERCEPT IS A UNIT OF EXPERIENCE", WHAT A GEM, I LOVE IT!!
Jim D

[Martin Taylor 2006.04.09.11.44]

[Jim Dundon 2003.04.08.11.43 EDST]

So the question is; what does PCT consider a doubt to be?.

A very interesting question, which ties in to several threads that have never been satisfactorily resolved over the years.

Is a doubt a percept or an anti-percept?

Since it's something you perceive, it's a perception. That much is clear.

But of what is it a perception? That's the interesting question.

Doubt isn't a perception of a state of the outer world.

I recently lost a wallet and doubted that it was being returned. A general may be anticipating reinforcements but because of a blinding snowstorm doubt they were on their way. Are these not examples of doubt about the state of the outer world?

I raised this question in conjunction with what we experience when we are absent tactile sensory inputs. It seems to me that when I am not touching an area of my skin that the only evidence I have that it is still there, that my limbs are still intact are functions of memory, and if you will, faith. I gave the example of my laying in bed, which I have done, as motionless as I can in a quiet dark room, with my eyes closed, and asking myself this question "how do I know my toes, my knees, etc. are there?". As far as I can tell the only "proof" I have is really not proof but memory and belief. My mind is learned over time that I can depend on this assumption, that is to say there is a subconscious and unconscious conviction, reinforced opinion, that everything is still there. That I don't have to keep proving it to myself. I believe that if, while sitting there reading this post you ask yourself about some area of your body which is not being receiving pressure of some kind how you know it's there you will have to conclude that on the conscious level it is only by memory, conviction, faith and or visual confirmation. It may be that there are subtle neural activities which some area of my brain is aware of but on a conscious level the only reason I have to believe it is experience and memory. This experience may occasion doubt in fact I may somewhat deliberately generate doubt. Experience a little fear. In which case I may desire a reinforcement of my memory, belief.

I used this illustration to bring some focus on how I see the percept "reinforcement" as not being in theoretical conflict with the principles of PCT. If there is conflict it is probably political at whatever level languaging takes place. Probably the relationships level. The turfing level.

In "Living Control Systems", page 16, Bill Powers says "we suppose that this will cause the organization to tend to persist or even become a semipermanent part of the hierarchy of learned systems. This kind of learning as many evolutionary advantages; for one, a new system will not be fixed for every chance arrangement of the environment, but only for situations which tend to repeat".

Bills words clearly represent a perception of a process many people refer to as "reinforcement".

Does PCT recognize this as reinforcement? If not, why not?

···

----- Original Message ----- From: "Martin Taylor" <mmt-csg@ROGERS.COM>
To: <CSGNET@LISTSERV.UIUC.EDU>
Sent: Sunday, April 09, 2006 1:19 PM
Subject: Re: doubt anti matter and memory [DAMM]

Perceptions of the outer world have some value, which is the current perceive state of the relevant aspect of the outer world. As seen by an external analyst, that value might be uncertain, in the sense that it isn't always the same for a given "true" condition of the perceived state. But that uncertainty doesn't exist in the perception itself. The perception that is doubted is not the perception of the doubt.

The previous sentence holds a clue: "the perception that is doubted" implies that at least one input into the function (operation) that produces doubt is itself a perception. But it can't be the only input, because if it were, the value of the "doubt" perception would be a function of the value of the peception doubted, which is silly.

So at least two other perceptions must contribute to the perception of doubt. Presumably those two (or more) contributory perceptions have soem relation to each other; notably, they say different things about some particular "true" state of the world. In plainer words, there is counter-evidence opposing the "factual" correctness of some perception.

For example, imagine that you can see an apparently solid object nearby (it's really a hologram or a reflection in half a spherical mirror). You go to pick it up, but your hand goes right through it. Your vision tells you that the "true" state of the outer world includes the object. Your haptic sense tells you that it doesn't. There is a conflict, and one (or both) of the perceptions apparently ought to be doubted.

I say "ought to be" from the viewpoint of an external analyst, not from the viewpoint of the observer, who may or may not perceive doubt, depending on whether the implications of the two perceptions actually are compared. The example situation is more clear-cut than most situations in which we perceive doubt. Either there is an object or there isn't. Either one's eyes or one's haptic sense is deceptive.

The interesting situations occur when one or more of the conflicting perceptions are generated in imagination. One may imagine that one is going to serve an ace in tennis, but one also remebers (imagines) that in the past one has seldom succeeded in serving an ace against this opponent. There are conflicting perceptions of "serving an ace" and "failing to serve an ace". Some perceptual function must take both of those perceptions, which "should be" identical, and from their difference, perceive something we call doubt. If the perceptions had been identical ("I always serve an ace when I want to"), the corresponding perception would be called "confidence". It's just a different value level for the same perception that compares two or more other perceptions.

If only the imagined perception of "serving an ace" were available, there could be no perception of doubt. The serve might not in fact produce an ace, but that would simply (in PCT) correspond to "error" in the relevant control function(s), which might be correctible for future serves.

I have no proper or definitive answer about what "doubt" means in PCT, but I am clear (without doubt:-) that it involves the perception of mismatch among perceptions that "ought to be" the same.

On another occasion I might be equally clear (again wothout doubt) that something different is involved. That I say this implies that I now have doubt, but only because I can compare the last two sentences.

I hope this either is satisfactory or provokes useful comment -- other than about the PCT-sloppy use of terms like "implies" and "ought to be".

Martin

[Martin Taylor 2006.04.11.14.42]

Jim Dundon
To: <CSGNET@LISTSERV.UIUC.EDU>
Sent: Sunday, April 09, 2006 1:19 PM
Subject: Re: doubt anti matter and memory [DAMM]

[Martin Taylor 2006.04.09.11.44]

[Jim Dundon 2003.04.08.11.43 EDST]

So the question is; what does PCT consider a doubt to be?.

A very interesting question, which ties in to several threads that have never been satisfactorily resolved over the years.

Is a doubt a percept or an anti-percept?

Since it's something you perceive, it's a perception. That much is clear.

But of what is it a perception? That's the interesting question.

Doubt isn't a perception of a state of the outer world.

I recently lost a wallet and doubted that it was being returned. A general may be anticipating reinforcements but because of a blinding snowstorm doubt they were on their way. Are these not examples of doubt about the state of the outer world?

That was indeed my point, precisely. The doubt is doubt ABOUT a (perceived) state of the outer world. The doubt is not itself a perception of the outer world.

I raised this question in conjunction with what we experience when we are absent tactile sensory inputs. It seems to me that when I am not touching an area of my skin that the only evidence I have that it is still there, that my limbs are still intact are functions of memory, and if you will, faith.

So far, so good. You are comparing the perception you now have of the state of the limbs with a remembered perception of their state, and the two perception, which should be similar, are not. Therein lies doubt.

  As far as I can tell the only "proof" I have is really not proof but memory and belief. My mind is learned over time that I can depend on this assumption,

Yes, so the doubt is minimal. You have introduced a third perception into the mix -- a memory of the perceptions that have followed similar situations of doubt in the past. Those memories correspond to one of the original perceptions that caused the initial doubt, reducing the doubt.

You might be amused at something that happened to me under somewhat similar conditions. I woke up one morning, and as is often my habit, I lay musing (not daydreaming) for a while. At some point I realized I had three arms. Somehow during the night, I must have moved one arm while the kinaesthetic sensations in that arm had been disabled. As the kinaesthetic sensation from the "Real" arm came back, the "memory" arm faded from my conscious perception. It was a very odd few minutes, since all three arms had, perceptually, the same solidity. Only by moving them could I determine which of the two on the right actually was real.

I used this illustration to bring some focus on how I see the percept "reinforcement" as not being in theoretical conflict with the principles of PCT.

The word is, though, since it has a technical meaning in a psychological theory that is incompatible with PCT, and its meaning in that theory has no cognate function in PCT.

There is certainly development of function in PCT that has an effect like that of reinforcement, but the mechanism is very different (if indeed there is a behaviourist mechanism). If we go to the neurophysiological level, we know that various changes accompany repeated use (or prolonged disuse) of particular neural pathways. I guess those changes could be taken to support both "reinforcement" and the functional developments of PCT structures, but that doesn't justify using the word in the PCT context, while there are still many people who would understand it in the behaviourist context.

In "Living Control Systems", page 16, Bill Powers says "we suppose that this will cause the organization to tend to persist or even become a semipermanent part of the hierarchy of learned systems. This kind of learning as many evolutionary advantages; for one, a new system will not be fixed for every chance arrangement of the environment, but only for situations which tend to repeat".

Bills words clearly represent a perception of a process many people refer to as "reinforcement".

Does PCT recognize this as reinforcement? If not, why not?

Not. See above. If the term hadn't been co-opted by the behaviourists, I think it would be a perfectly justifiable PCT term. But the behavioural usage isn't going to go away any time soon, so it's better not to use the word in the PCT context.

I'm glad you are raising these questions. Perceptions of perceptions (as opposed to perceptions that are functions of other perceptions), such as "doubt" or "certainty", "belief", and "disbelief" are not yet well treated in conventional PCT. These perceptions are the potential objects of control. One can act to reduce doubt about something, thereby controlling the doubt perception. That control differs from the incorporation of a low-level perception into the construction of a higher-level perception.

Martin

[From Bjorn Simonsen (2006.05.18,14:00 EUST)]

May I go back to an earlier subject?

This is a HTML format.

Jim Dundon 2003.04.08.11.43 EDST
(His DAMM)

On several occasions I have attempted to remain perfectly still as
I lay in bed and in doing so, if I do it long enough, I begin to
realize that the contours of my body, the shape of my legs and
toes and arms exists only as memories. I have no continuing
evidence that my memories are true. If I lay there long enough
the memories begin to dim and I have to work at maintaining a
concept, percept of them. I realize when this happens that in
order for me to keep out doubt about the shape of things I must
move. After a period of time I begin to look for a reinforcement
of my memory, and if I move, my doubts are removed and my
memories are reinforced. And I have satisfied a desire.

I am not sure “reinforce” is a useful concept. I think you just become less aware of the contours of your body when you remain perfectly still in bed. I am not quite sure what awareness is, but I know I am not aware of all my body parts, my friends, my car or how to work out a second-degree equation all time.
I think I am not aware of everything out there always and I also think there are degrees of awareness and that awareness is a dependent on the number of active sense organs. (Maybe awareness has something to do wit O2 (oxygen) metabolism in the brain?)
When you remain perfectly still and close your eyes you become less aware of the contours of your body and your awareness of them becomes relative a more memory concept.

Earlier I did self suggestion. I went through a body relaxing program and concentrated on different mental problem solving programs. I also some times concentrated on mental flying and I experienced wonderful adventures. I think the body relaxing programs were successful because my awareness of my body diminished.
You said you had to move your limbs to keep out doubt about their existence. I tried to keep them out of existence. Of course also I went back to real time perception, but my doubtfulness was never a problem.

It was interesting to read about your thoughts about gravity and death. I thought upon death as both body emancipation and gravity emancipation.

So the question is; what does PCT consider a doubt to be?.

I think upon your question in connexion with your statement: “I realize when this happens that in order for me to keep out doubt about the shape of things I must move.”
In this connexion I consider “doubt” as lack of awareness.
In other connexions I think upon “doubt” as something else.

Martin Taylor 2006.04.09.11.44 (about doubt)

Since it’s something you perceive, it’s a perception. That much is clear.

For example, imagine that you can see an apparently solid object
nearby (it’s really a hologram or a reflection in half a spherical
mirror). You go to pick it up, but your hand goes right through it.
Your vision tells you that the “true” state of the outer world
includes the object. Your haptic sense tells you that it doesn’t.
There is a conflict, and one (or both) of the perceptions apparently
ought to be doubted.

Also I think upon “doubt” in connexion with “conflicts”. I think “doubts” and “conflicts” have the same effect in two different situations.
Conflict is an encounter between two control systems trying to control the same quantity (the quantity is a environmental representation).
“Doubt” is an encounter between two control systems controlling in imagination mode.

Let me use an example from Tim A. Carey: The Method of Levels" page 45.

In imagination Mode the highest level where a general goal provides the context for doubt (my word, Tim uses conflict) This is a goal for “the quality of life” for a person. Let me give a reference, r = 5.

The same person is able to control his quality of life at a middle level where a method with financial gain is involved and another method where personal support is involved. The person is able to achieve “his quality of life” by controlling some financial businesses, selling his house. The person is also able to achieve “his quality of life” by controlling some personal businesses, let his girlfriend live in his house for one year when he is away.

He is able to control his “selling the house” at still al lower level. Here he is able to control his “selling the house” at two incompatible sub goals. He is able to sell the house “now” and “later”

Outlook3.bmp|x

Am I wrong when I say that an internal conflict can be mixed up with doubt and that an external conflict is a conflict?

bjorn

[Jim Dundon 2006.05.24.1150ESDT]

Outlook3.bmp (298 KB)

···

[From Bjorn Simonsen (2006.05.18,14:00 EUST)]

May I go back to an earlier subject?

This is a HTML format.

Jim Dundon 2003.04.08.11.43 EDST
(His DAMM)

On several occasions I have attempted to remain perfectly still as
I lay in bed and in doing so, if I do it long enough, I begin to
realize that the contours of my body, the shape of my legs and
toes and arms exists only as memories. I have no continuing
evidence that my memories are true. If I lay there long enough
the memories begin to dim and I have to work at maintaining a
concept, percept of them. I realize when this happens that in
order for me to keep out doubt about the shape of things I must
move. After a period of time I begin to look for a reinforcement
of my memory, and if I move, my doubts are removed and my
memories are reinforced. And I have satisfied a desire.

I am not sure “reinforce” is a useful concept


Jim

in this context or any? Are you questioning the use of the word or the existence of the percept it represents?

I accept your uncertainty about its usefulness. My attitude toward any word is that it has usefulness to the user. To me each word is an experiencing naming, a unit of experience, a percept. Even in your statement above the word reinforce has a usefulness. Your use of it in the statement is to tell me that it is useless. You are telling me that a concept, a percept, an experiencing naming, is useless. I do not presume to speak for everyone. To some people reinforce is a useful experiencing naming. You must have an opinion about what the word means or your statement would be useless. The usefulness of the word reinforce is contextual. I used it to because to me it fit my experiencing. I can of course discipline myself and not use it if you prefer. This doesn’t mean that the whole world will follow suit Your labeling of the word as useless was arbitrary and I’m not sure whether you were talking about the word or the function it represented.


I think you just become less aware of the contours of your body when you remain perfectly still in bed. I am not quite sure what awareness is, but I know I am not aware of all my body parts, my friends, my car or how to work out a second-degree equation all time.
I think I am not aware of everything out there always and I also think there are degrees of awareness and that awareness is a dependent on the number of active sense organs.


Jim

Since awareness is dependent on active sense organs, and when laying in bed there is a very little active tactile sensing what is left but memory? To that also attaches belief. does the concept “confirm a belief” have more usefulness to you?


(Maybe awareness has something to do wit O2 (oxygen) metabolism in the brain?)
When you remain perfectly still and close your eyes you become less aware of the contours of your body and your awareness of them becomes relative a more memory concept.


Jim:

This is pretty much what I was saying.

Earlier I did self suggestion. I went through a body relaxing program and concentrated on different mental problem solving programs. I also some times concentrated on mental flying and I experienced wonderful adventures. I think the body relaxing programs were successful because my awareness of my body diminished.
You said you had to move your limbs to keep out doubt about their existence. I tried to keep them out of existence. Of course also I went back to real time perception, but my doubtfulness was never a problem.


Jim:

I don’t think doubt of necessity has to enter the picture certainty about a memory is just as good a motivating source as doubt. It sounds like it’s probably arbitrary and I was inclined to use doubt. It might be better to you certainty.

The major thrust of what I was saying was that in great measure we owe a sense of what we are and what we can do to an environment which has been very responsible for making us what we are. We may enjoy a sense of autonomy but if we reflect on our physical nature it would be foolish to assume that it is independent of our environment. We are very dependent on the environment. When I made that statement earlier it was said that I was forcing an input output shape to things. And I can see how someone might hear me saying that because I failed to point out that I understand the process to be one simultaneous continuous process of action on the environment by living organism. What I’m saying is no different than what has been said on CSG at other times in saying that behavior is a function of the organism and its environment. I was emphasizing the fact that the what of what we are has been shaped in large part by our environment and that our environment continues to confirm our assumptions about what we can do and what we are. If this were not so we would cease to exist. It is simply saying that I can depend on gravity to work for me in the present as it has in the past; I can continue to depend on fresh water to satisfy my thirst; I can continue to depend that when I look out my window my car will be where I left it and do not floating uselessly 4 feet above the ground; I can continue to believe that a certain combination of sunshine and rain and temperature other environmental conditions some of which I can bring about myself will produce this year a crop similar to last year’s. Any uncertainty brought about by the prospect unforeseen events confirms my belief that the environment is essential to our existence.


It was interesting to read about your thoughts about gravity and death. I thought upon death as both body emancipation and gravity emancipation.


JIM

Of course it is. But is there any life there? I think not. Life is not without struggle, not without the body, not without all the other environmental influences in our evolutionary history. We could block all these things out of our minds and perhaps reach a self opiated state, but before long hunger and thirst and other environmental changes would dictate that we act or die.

So the question is; what does PCT consider a doubt to be?.

I think upon your question in connexion with your statement: “I realize when this happens that in order for me to keep out doubt about the shape of things I must move.”
In this connexion I consider “doubt” as lack of awareness.


Jim:

in this context I would consider doubt to be the result, not the identity of lack of awareness, and perhaps also my learned system of dealing with lack of awareness, my habitual labeling of lack of awareness, as the situation in which doubt can motivate action to confirm a memory.


In other connexions I think upon “doubt” as something else.

Martin Taylor 2006.04.09.11.44 (about doubt)

Since it’s something you perceive, it’s a perception. That much is clear.

For example, imagine that you can see an apparently solid object
nearby (it’s really a hologram or a reflection in half a spherical
mirror). You go to pick it up, but your hand goes right through it.
Your vision tells you that the “true” state of the outer world
includes the object. Your haptic sense tells you that it doesn’t.
There is a conflict, and one (or both) of the perceptions apparently
ought to be doubted.

Also I think upon “doubt” in connexion with “conflicts”. I think “doubts” and “conflicts” have the same effect in two different situations.
Conflict is an encounter between two control systems trying to control the same quantity (the quantity is a environmental representation).
“Doubt” is an encounter between two control systems controlling in imagination mode.

Let me use an example from Tim A. Carey: The Method of Levels" page 45.

In imagination Mode the highest level where a general goal provides the context for doubt (my word, Tim uses conflict) This is a goal for “the quality of life” for a person. Let me give a reference, r = 5.

The same person is able to control his quality of life at a middle level where a method with financial gain is involved and another method where personal support is involved. The person is able to achieve “his quality of life” by controlling some financial businesses, selling his house. The person is also able to achieve “his quality of life” by controlling some personal businesses, let his girlfriend live in his house for one year when he is away.

He is able to control his “selling the house” at still al lower level. Here he is able to control his “selling the house” at two incompatible sub goals. He is able to sell the house “now” and “later”

Am I wrong when I say that an internal conflict can be mixed up with doubt and that an external conflict is a conflict?


Jim:

Doubt might also enter into an external conflict where one or both parties experience a measure of doubt or uncertainty about the value of contested environmental variables, which doubt would be the basis for the conflict. Doubt and certainty have a role together. One does not exist without the other. In a conflict I could be certain that I am not sure about the need for a certain environmental variable there from going to make sure that I have the option.

best

Jim

bjorn

[From Bjorn Simonsen (2006.05.22,20,05 EUST)]
Jim Dundon 2006.05.24.1150ESDT

I am not sure "reinforce" is a useful concept

in this context or any? Are you questioning the
use of the word or the existence of the percept it represents?

In this context. I tried to say that I think the "quality" of our
perceptions (dim and clear) are more a result of where awareness is focused
than result of a reinforcement. In one moment I don't perceive the pressure
from the chair I sit on. In the next moment I perceive the pressure. The
perception exists both moments, but the last moment I was aware of the
perception.

My attitude toward any word is that it has usefulness to the user.
To some people reinforce is a useful experiencing
naming. You must have an opinion about what the
word means or your statement would be useless.

Yes, I should not have used the word " not useful". I was so engaged in
focusing on the process of awareness that I too soon disregarded the
reinforcement of the memory perception. I should not have put that sentence
on the "paper".
I also read your sentence as if you reinforced your memory (you were the
subject). What you really said was: "After a period of time I begin to look
for a reinforcement of my memory, ..". Here you looked for an object which
was reinforced. The reinforcement was an effect of something behind your
moving of your toes. Or do you see it different.

The usefulness of the word reinforce is contextual.
I used it to because to me it fit my experiencing. I
can of course discipline myself and not use it if you prefer.

Please don't. I understand very well what you say when you said: "After a
period of time I begin to look for a reinforcement of my memory,..."

Since awareness is dependent on active sense organs,
and when laying in bed there is a very little active tactile
sensing what is left but memory? To that also attaches
belief. does the concept "confirm a belief" have more
usefulness to you?

I am not sure I see the main point in your two sentences above. I think we
perceive what we wish to perceive more than what we sense of environmental
variables. And we are aware of some of our perceptions.
Let me give you some examples where I have done some mathematics.

r = 3, d = 2 give p = 2.995. the feedback signal = 0.995
A disturbance is perceived. A copy of the perceptual signal goes to
different higher levels and meet a comparator where an error is formed. Now
we have a system. The feedback signal becomes part of the perceptual signal.
Of course it takes some time if the comparator is on a high level.
We perceive what we wish to perceive, we don't perceive disturbances.

r = 5, d = 7 give p = 5.01 the feedback signal is -1.990
A disturbance is perceived. A copy of the perceptual signal goes to
different higher levels and meet a comparator where an error is formed. Now
we have a system. The feedback signal becomes part of the perceptual signal.
Of course it takes some time if the comparator is on a high level.
We perceive what we wish to perceive, we don't perceive disturbances.

r = 10, d = 10 give p = 10.0 the feedback signal is 0 because
the perception of the disturbance is what we wish to perceive, Still the
perceptual signal is what we wish to perceive, not what the disturbance
represent.

The major thrust of what I was saying was that
in great measure we owe a sense of what we are
and what we can do to an environment which has
been very responsible for making us what we are.

I should not have laid hold of the word "useless" and my reflections in that
coherence. Your main point is (as you have written quite clear) that the
environment (gravity and the rest of the environment) is very responsible
for what we are.
Yes, I think the environment is responsible for our body, for what we are.
Our learned hierarchy helps our body to be as the evolution has formed us.
Our learned hierarchy knows what it wishes the environment to be. And if we
perceive disturbances, we act to again make our perceptions as we wish them
to be.
I think as you. We are part of the environment. Our learned hierarchy, where
we perceive what we are exists for one purpose. It serves as a means by
which we can maintain (free rewritten from Tom Bourbon).

So the question is; what does PCT consider a doubt to be?.

In this connexion I consider "doubt" as lack of awareness.

in this context I would consider doubt to be the
result,......., as the situation in which doubt can
motivate action to confirm a memory.

May I make more confusion? In an earlier mail Rick defined tolerance as how
a control system put up with error. If it put high up with error, the system
was tolerant. If it didn't put high up with error, the system was
intolerant. Gradually this become OK for me.
Could we consider doubt in the same way, as a system that put high up with
error. And no doubt as a system that don't put high up with error?

Doubt might also enter into an external conflict where one
or both parties experience a measure of doubt or uncertainty
about the value of contested environmental variables,
which doubt would be the basis for the conflict.

Her I have problems. I don't think we experience the environmental
variables, and less I think we experience uncertainty about environmental
variables. But I may be wrong.

bjorn