Marc,
Like I've said, my engagement in all this is rather casual. So, I know nothing at all about this "Dhimmi" business. I was planning to surft the Webb and see if I could find out what it involves.
bill
[From Bruce Gregory (2003.12.19.0803)]
Marc Abrams (2003.12.19.0122)
[From Rick Marken (2003.12.18.2120)]
I think I could understand this better if you could suggest a
demonstration of this phenomenon.I heartily agree. As I said in an earlier post, I'm not prepared yet
to go
'public'. Bill was nice enough to suggest an outline I should follow
if I
wanted serious consideration to be given to my ideas, I agree
completely,
and I'm currently working on it. I don't want to post a part of it
because
everything is very much entwined and I am not prepared to cover all the
bases yet, so please have some patience. Maybe Martin or Bill can come
up
with something you can sink your teeth into right now. I can't. I can
only
give you words.
I think Rick would agree that words are just fine as a start. What is
the _experience_ that you are trying to explain with your nascent
model? if you changed your perception of Moslems, what would that be
like? In what ways would you perceive a Moslem on the street
differently than you do now? Would his aura change color? 
Bruce Gregory
"Everything that needs to be said has already been said. But since no
one was listening, everything must be said again."
Andre Gide
from [Marc Abrams (2003.12.19.1012)
[From Bruce Gregory (2003.12.19.0803)]
I think Rick would agree that words are just fine as a start. What is
the _experience_ that you are trying to explain with your nascent
model?
As I have stated many times, I _DO NOT_ currently have a model. I have some
nascent _insights_ into a possible model but nothing concrete. I still
believe that this will be an extension/expansion of the HPCT model as it
currently exists, but I am taking Bill P's advice to heart because I believe
it will help diffuse any acrimony and help keep the focus on the ideas
presented, so your out of luck kiddo. 
I won't bite. If you want to talk
about it, go right ahead, If you find it impossible to think of ways to
change your perception, try the MOL. You might not change anything doing it,
but you'll be aware of _what_ you might be able to change.
btw, some of my best friends are Moslems. (I use a lot of car service,
and most of the drivers here are Pakistani's, and we've had more than one
interesting conversation :-))
if you changed your perception of Moslems, what would that be
like?
I don't have a perception of 'Moslems'. I _do_ have one of _Islamists_.
If you decided tomorrow you wanted to be rabbi, what would that be like?
In what ways would you perceive a Moslem on the street
differently than you do now? Would his aura change color?
How would I 'know' a Moslem on the street from an Islamist? Why would I
perceive him/her any differently than anyone else?
Marc
[From Bruce Gregory (2003.12.19.1102)]
Marc Abrams (2003.12.19.1012)
How would I 'know' a Moslem on the street from an Islamist? Why would I
perceive him/her any differently than anyone else?
I have no idea. You said that until one changed the way they perceive
Islamists it would be impossible to change one's goals. All I am trying
to do is to figure out what this means. if it doesn't mean anything,
I'll gladly let the matter drop.
Bruce Gregory
"Everything that needs to be said has already been said. But since no
one was listening, everything must be said again."
Andre Gide
[From Bruce Gregory (2003.12.19.1112)]
[Martin Taylor 2003.12.19.0009 EST]
If you are talking about a belief, maybe you observe something that
is an input into the function that defines the nature of the belief.
To the extent that beliefs are perceptions, they are not perceptions of
the physical world. Nor, apparently can they be manipulated in the
fashion that objects can be manipulated. Beliefs are thoughts. they are
formulations in language. (You can say that I believe that the wall is
solid. If you use the term in that way, animals as well as humans have
beliefs. I am using the term to refer to what we normally call beliefs,
e.g., the universe is governed by universal laws.) No matter what you
think of Saddam Hussein, you see pretty much the same guy as I do. We
are probably reminded of different things when we look at him, and
these remindings are perceptions, but I have no reason to claim that we
perceive him significantly differently.
Bruce Gregory
"Everything that needs to be said has already been said. But since no
one was listening, everything must be said again."
Andre Gide
from [Marc Abrams (2003.12.19.1123)]
[From Bill Powers(2003.12.18.2001 MST)]
I don't know if this term "signal" carries the right meaning for people
who
haven't been doing electronic stuff most of their lives as I have. In the
sense I mean, there are no "signals" in the environment. Let me try to
explain this usage.
That is why I say "perceptual signal." I mean the neural current flowing
in
an axon, which carries only the feeblest amount of energy, but serves to
carry a measurement from one place to another in the nervous system.I have seen remarks here and there which might indicate that someone is
not
aware of this usage, and is thinking that a signal is like the horn that
goes off to tell golfers to seek shelter when lightning is nearby, or the
flash of white as a mule deer flicks its tail. That's an entirely
different
usage of the word "signal" and is unconnected to the way I use it in PCT.
Thanks Bill, This clears up my understanding of what and how you define a
'signal'. I am in agreement with you after all. I wasn't quite sure, now I
am. btw, SD is adamant about this usage, and the fact that many people try
to use stock and flows for the representation of 'informational' flows and
this is not considered good SD modeling. That's one of the reasons I think
you used 'auxiliary' variables in your Vensim models. No need for stocks and
flows.
Marc
from [Marc Abrams (2003.12.19.1137)]
[From Bruce Gregory (2003.12.19.1102)]
I have no idea. You said that until one changed the way they perceive
Islamists it would be impossible to change one's goals.
No, I didn't say that. What I said was:
from [Marc Abrams (2003.12.18.1545)]
"In order for me to change a goal, and in order for it to be an effective
change, I must change my perceptions, both real and imagined first.
I do not see the word 'impossible' here. I do see the word 'effective'.
To further explain this; Your perceptions form the boundries for your
imaginations, planning and goal setting. When I set a goal (you might be
different) it is _usually_ done with perceptions of what my limitations are
or might be, real and imagined with regard to attaining that goal. I could
certainly change goals and not have to change any perceptions, but that is
_not_ how it usually works for me. letr me give you an example.
I am currently attending college. What if I decided tomorrow that I am no
longer interested in 'getting-a-degree' but I would like to continue my
education. Has my goal changed? Sure, so in order for me to succeed with my
new goal of 'education-no degree' I have to plan (perceive) a way to
accomplish this. Do I attend as a non matriculated student? Do I simply go
on-line, pick a school, look at the curriculum, buy the text book and
self-study? That all depends on how I best perceive myself in accomplishing
my new goal. At least if I was really trying to be _effective_ it would. If
I didn't reflect on the best way to accomplish my new goal, I would probably
not succeed in it.
Has this helped to clarify?
Marc
[From Bill Powers (2003.12.19.1012 MST)]
Marc Abrams (2003.12.19.1123)--
many people try
to use stock and flows for the representation of 'informational' flows and
this is not considered good SD modeling. That's one of the reasons I think
you used 'auxiliary' variables in your Vensim models. No need for stocks and
flows.
Excellent observation, and true. I didn't know there were discussions about
this, but it's good that others recognize the distinction. Stocks and
flows, I take it, would be used to model things in the environment where
there are actual accumulations and transports of matter and energy, while
auxiliary variables would be used to represent signals inside the
controlling system.
Thanks for the info.
Best,
Bill P.
from [Marc Abrams (2003.12.19.1232)]
[From Bill Powers (2003.12.19.1012 MST)]
Stocks and flows, I take it, would be used to model things in the
environment where
there are actual accumulations and transports of matter and energy, while
auxiliary variables would be used to represent signals inside the
controlling system.
That's it, and as you pointed out, the distinction is _not_ insignificant.
They represent entirely different things. It's an easy trap to fall into
because most people come into SD from the 'systems thinking' crowd and they
are used to thinking in terms of causal loop diagrams which some
automatically translate into stock -> flow diagrams. _That_ is a no-no.
Marc
[From Rick Marken (2003.12.19.0930)]
Bill Powers(2003.12.18.2001 MST)--
Rick Marken (2003.12.18.1555)--
But then what term do we use to refer to the state of a perceptual variable
that requires no change in the actions of the control system?Good point. I think I usually say that the perceptual signal (not
perceptual variable) matches the reference signal, or that the error
(signal) is zero.
I don't know if there's any way to be absolutely verbally accurate about
this. I personally feel comfortable using the terms "controlled
environmental variable" and "controlled perceptual variable" somewhat
interchangeably. I know what you mean when you say "reference state of the
controlled environmental variable" or "reference state of the controlled
perceptual variable". They mean the same thing to me. In the coin game, for
example, the reference state is the state of the coins that requires no
corrective action. This state exists as a perception in the controller and
in the observer. Both might describe this perception as the state of the
environment, in which case it makes sense to call the observed pattern of
coins "the reference state of the controlled environmental variable". A
philosophically sophisticated controller and a PCT aware observer might also
describe this perception as the state of a perceptual variable, in which
case it also makes sense to call the observed pattern of coins "the
reference state of the controlled perceptual variable".
I agree that we should use the term "perceptual signal" to refer only to an
entity in the model that is presumed to correspond to what we experience as
an environmental or perceptual variable. But as a modeler I rarely have the
need to talk about the reference state of the perceptual signal. I think the
reference signal accounts for the observed fact that environmental (or
perceptual, if you prefer to call them that) variables have reference
states.
So I would say that the term "reference state" refers to an observed fact --
the fact that the state of some variables are protected from disturbance.
These reference states can be called environmental or perceptual states (or
conditions), depending on the communicative goals of the speaker. As you
suggest, I think it makes sense to call reference states the states of
environmental variables when talking about them from the point of view of an
observer and perceptual variables when talking about them from the point of
view of a controller.
Best
Rick
···
--
Richard S. Marken
MindReadings.com
Home: 310 474 0313
Cell: 310 729 1400
[From Rick Marken (2003.12.19.1035)]
Marc Abrams (2003.12.19.0122)
Rick Marken (2003.12.18.2120)--
I think I could understand this better if you could suggest a
demonstration of this phenomenon.I heartily agree. As I said in an earlier post, I'm not prepared yet to go
'public'.
I can understand your not being prepared to go public with a model. But
surely you can say what observations (subjective or objective) led you to
say that perceptions can change "by altering the inputs either from memory
or the environment". Your model -- the one that changes perceptions by
altering inputs from memory to the environment -- is presumably designed to
explain your observations. So what are the observations?
Best
Rick
···
--
Richard S. Marken
MindReadings.com
Home: 310 474 0313
Cell: 310 729 1400
from [Marc Abrams (2003.12.19.1634)]
[From Rick Marken (2003.12.19.1035)]
I can understand your not being prepared to go public with a model.
No Rick, I'm not prepared to go public with the _thoughts_ I have on a
potential extension or expansion of HPCT. I have no other model in mind. I
thought I made that clear with my response to Bruce G and I won't discuss
part of it until I'm prepared to discuss it _all_. I didn't say I need to
have a finished or polished end product, I _do_ need to be able to provide
some basic justifications for my position. That is only just and reasonable.
Exactly what is it you don't understand?
But surely you can say what observations (subjective or objective) led you
to
say that perceptions can change "by altering the inputs either from memory
or the environment.
Ok, Have you heard the often repeated cliche that "Everytime I re-read this
book new information is put in". Well, the same holds true for the
environment. There are different aspects of the environment you might not
have noticed before or have not seen in the same context (maybe you were in
a different state of mind). When you combine that with what your imagination
tells you that you saw the last time, you just might have new perceptions.
Of course the MOL is a terrific way to alter your perceptions, it's called
reflection. Something you did very nicely in your reply to Bruce Gregory in
the 'Conflict thread'.
[From Rick Marken (2003.12.09.2030)]
I looked over the "Love and Hate" thread, which started with [Bruce Gregory
(2003.12.07.0905)], in order to show >Bruce examples of what I thought were
his baiting. But as I read it over I could see that there was no baiting at
all. >Bruce was simply saying things that I found disturbing. I took these
disturbances as being intentionally created by >Bruce -- that he was baiting
me -- and I think that was very unfair of me. It's what led to me to make
the >completely unnecessary remark at the end of the series..
Do you see how your perceptions of Bruce changed here? Do you see that your
imagination was a _central_ contributor to your initial perceptions of Bruce
'baiting' you. It was only because you viewed the environment (the thread)
again and came away with different perceptions. Your memory and imagination
with regard to Bruce were altered.
Exactly what are you having a difficult time with here?
Your model -- the one that changes perceptions by
altering inputs from memory to the environment -- is presumably designed
to
explain your observations. So what are the observations?
Why don't _you_ tell _me_?
Marc
[From Rick Marken (2003.12.19.1540)]
Marc Abrams (2003.12.19.1634)--
Rick Marken (2003.12.19.1035)--
But surely you can say what observations (subjective or objective) led you
to say that perceptions can change "by altering the inputs either from
memory or the environment.There are different aspects of the environment you might not
have noticed before or have not seen in the same context (maybe you were in
a different state of mind). When you combine that with what your imagination
tells you that you saw the last time, you just might have new perceptions.
Thanks. That's what I wanted to know. Now I understand better, I think, why
you want to include memory (and imagination and emotion) in the model of
perception. I have had this same experience myself, of course, many times.
I perceive the same situation in different ways at different times. I
perceive what I did not see before; or find that I saw more in something
then than I do now.
I think one of the most dramatic examples of seeing the same objective
circumstances in different ways at different times occurs with the ambiguous
figure illusions, like the wife/witch illusion, where the same physical
lines look at one time, like a beautiful woman and, at another, like an old
hag. Once you learn to see the picture in both ways it's easy to switch from
one perception to the other voluntarily. This switching is a form of
control, is it not? I can control whether I am seeing the wife or the witch
at any particular time. It's not easy but it can be done. Perhaps inputs
from memory and imagination will, indeed, be needed to explain this
phenomenon. Maybe the use of illusions in a tracking type task is the way to
get at this.
Of course the MOL is a terrific way to alter your perceptions, it's called
reflection.
I think the change in perception that occurs during MOL is different from
the change that occurs in situations like the wife/witch. In MOL, you are
seeing the same situation from a different point of view. In the ambiguous
figure example, you are seeing the same situation from the same point of
view, just different examples of perceptions from that point of view. For
example, in an MOL change in perception you would change from seeing the
wife/witch picture as an ambiguous configuration to seeing it as an
illustration of a principle (of ambiguous perception). In a non-MOL change
in perception you go from seeing one perception (the wife configuration) to
seeing a different one of the same type (the witch configuration).
Something you did very nicely in your reply to Bruce Gregory in
the 'Conflict thread'.
I don't think what happened in the "conflict thread" with Bruce was an
example of either MOL or seeing the same objective situation differently.
That's because I think the objective situation was somewhat different when I
read Bruce's posts as part of the "conflict" thread and when I read them
afterwards. The difference, I think, was the affective component of those
perceptions, which were part of my perceptions of the posts when I was in
the midst of the conflict but not part of those perceptions when I read the
posts afterward. This, of course, is consistent with your idea that
perceptions often include an emotional component. I think my own emotions
became part of my perception of Bruce's posts when we were in the conflict.
When I re-read Bruce's posts that emotional component was no longer present.
So I perceived Bruce's posts differently during and after the conflict
because the objective basis of those perceptions was different during and
after the conflict. The emotional component that existed during the
conflict probably led me to perceive Bruce's posts as "baiting". The absence
of that component after the conflict let me see those same posts as honest
challenges or questions about what PCT can explain. The conflict would
probably not have escalated as it did if I had simply waited until the
emotional component of my perceptions of Bruce's post had disappeared.
Best regards
Rick
···
--
Richard S. Marken
MindReadings.com
Home: 310 474 0313
Cell: 310 729 1400
[From Bruce Gregory (2003.12.19.1847)]
Marc Abrams (2003.12.19.1634)
Do you see how your perceptions of Bruce changed here? Do you see that
your
imagination was a _central_ contributor to your initial perceptions of
Bruce
'baiting' you. It was only because you viewed the environment (the
thread)
again and came away with different perceptions. Your memory and
imagination
with regard to Bruce were altered.
It seems to me that Rick was successfully controlling his perception of
personal integrity.
Bruce Gregory
"Everything that needs to be said has already been said. But since no
one was listening, everything must be said again."
Andre Gide
[From Bruce Gregory (2003.12.19.1919)]
Rick Marken (2003.12.19.1540)
I think one of the most dramatic examples of seeing the same objective
circumstances in different ways at different times occurs with the
ambiguous
figure illusions, like the wife/witch illusion, where the same physical
lines look at one time, like a beautiful woman and, at another, like
an old
hag. Once you learn to see the picture in both ways it's easy to
switch from
one perception to the other voluntarily. This switching is a form of
control, is it not? I can control whether I am seeing the wife or the
witch
at any particular time. It's not easy but it can be done. Perhaps
inputs
from memory and imagination will, indeed, be needed to explain this
phenomenon. Maybe the use of illusions in a tracking type task is the
way to
get at this.
I read somewhere how to reverse to Necker cube by concentrating on one
vertex or another. It seems that this illusion is based on where your
attention happens to be located. I suspect that is true of the lady/hag
illusion. When you discover, or are told, what to pay attention to,
control is not particularly difficult. My guess is that the same
approach could be taken to analyzing the "conflict" thread.
Bruce Gregory
"Everything that needs to be said has already been said. But since no
one was listening, everything must be said again."
Andre Gide
from [Marc Abrams (2003.12.19.2011)]
[From Bruce Gregory (2003.12.19.1847)]
It seems to me that Rick was successfully controlling his perception of
personal integrity.
I think that's a pretty fair point. I'd like to hear from Rick on this. To
accomplish this 'new' goal, he had to change his perceptions of the
situation and you. The old goal possibly was, 'being right' or 'proving you
wrong'. Of course he may not be controlling for this (That is, 'personal
integrity') 100% of the time, so we can't, unfortunately expect Rick, or
anyone else for that matter, to reflect on past actions, and control for
'personal integrity' or its equivalent all the time, and actually, I don't
think it necessary, but there _are_ times where it could be critical and the
difference between successful or rotten communication
I think the lesson to be drawn from this, at least for me, is to stop, when
in the middle of, or when you become aware of a bit of conflict, or tension
taking place, to see if it warrants an examination or reflection on my part.
The question becomes, What am _I_ contributing to this problem. Do the
observables match my imaginations. If not, why not? This is all the stuff
that Argyris has done so successfully over the years. Someday he will come
to learn that PCT is the theory underlying his 'Action Science', and as it
is for all purposeful behavior.
Marc
[From Bruce Gregory (2003.12.19.2113)]
Marc Abrams (2003.12.19.2011)
[From Bruce Gregory (2003.12.19.1847)]
It seems to me that Rick was successfully controlling his perception
of
personal integrity.I think that's a pretty fair point. I'd like to hear from Rick on
this. To
accomplish this 'new' goal, he had to change his perceptions of the
situation and you.
He had to change what he was paying attention to. Is that what you mean?
I think the lesson to be drawn from this, at least for me, is to stop,
when
in the middle of, or when you become aware of a bit of conflict, or
tension
taking place, to see if it warrants an examination or reflection on my
part.
The question becomes, What am _I_ contributing to this problem. Do the
observables match my imaginations. If not, why not? This is all the
stuff
that Argyris has done so successfully over the years. Someday he will
come
to learn that PCT is the theory underlying his 'Action Science', and
as it
is for all purposeful behavior.
Again, this calls for you to pay attention to things that you have not
been paying attention to. Conscious control seems to require that we
pay attention, and the bandwidth of attention is surprisingly narrow
(Tor Norretranders, _The User Illusion_).
Bruce Gregory
Marc
"Everything that needs to be said has already been said. But since no
one was listening, everything must be said again."
Andre Gide
from [Marc Abrams (2003.12.19.2036)]
[From Rick Marken (2003.12.19.1540)]
I think one of the most dramatic examples of seeing the same objective
circumstances in different ways at different times occurs with the
ambiguous
figure illusions, like the wife/witch illusion, where the same physical
lines look at one time, like a beautiful woman and, at another, like an
old
hag. Once you learn to see the picture in both ways it's easy to switch
from
one perception to the other voluntarily. This switching is a form of
control, is it not?
_Great question_. I don't know. If you mean is it a 'controlled' process I
would say yes. If you were to ask me whether it was _entirely_ voluntary I
might not think so.
Magicians have known for many more years than neuroscientists, that our eyes
will follow movement, whether we want to or not. That is why slight-of-hand
works. We can't help ourselves from being distracted, even if we try _not_
to be. This seems to be a tdifferent kind of question though, in that,
illusions usually don't move. I happen to have a book right along side me;
_101 Amazing Optical Illusions_ by Terry Jennings
For instance, I learned on the first page that when one eye is covered you
can only see in 2 dimensions and not 3. We also have a dominant eye. If your
right-handed it is usually your right eye.
Wow!, I just tried the first illusion. Take a piece of paper and roll it up
as a tube. With your _left_ eye look through the tube and while you do this
move your right hand, palm open, toward your right eye next to the rolled up
tube. It looks like you are looking through a hole in your right hand, and
this does _not_ work reversing eyes.
I can control whether I am seeing the wife or the witch at any particular
time. It's not easy but it can be done.
Yes, once you learn how and practice. The book on illusions talks about that
a great deal. We are capable of 'fooling' our eyes. But are we? First it's
not our eyes, its our _brain_ that is being fooled. Fooled by a set of
patterns that can be ambiguous.
Perhaps inputs from memory and imagination will, indeed, be needed to
explain this
phenomenon. Maybe the use of illusions in a tracking type task is the way
to
get at this.
Maybe, but do we need to work with trickery. Argyris has _TONS_ of data. Is
it useful? can it be analyzed? I think so. It come in a few different forms
> Of course the MOL is a terrific way to alter your perceptions, it's
called
> reflection.
I think the change in perception that occurs during MOL is different from
the change that occurs in situations like the wife/witch. In MOL, you are
seeing the same situation from a different point of view. In the ambiguous
figure example, you are seeing the same situation from the same point of
view, just different examples of perceptions from that point of view.
How so? The difference, as I now understand it, has to do with the amount of
rapid eye movements we make in adjustment to viewing the picture. You must
'train' yourself to view it more than one way and 'see' the illusion. So in
effect you are 'seeing' _different_ situations. That is, your eyes are not
'seeing' the same patterns, they are seeing something different. I don't
think there is a difference. In both cases, we see something different than
we did before.
For example, in an MOL change in perception you would change from seeing
the
wife/witch picture as an ambiguous configuration to seeing it as an
illustration of a principle (of ambiguous perception).
It only becomes 'ambiguous' when you learn how to see the other picture.
Before that it is quite clear what you can see.
In a non-MOL change
in perception you go from seeing one perception (the wife configuration)
to
seeing a different one of the same type (the witch configuration).
Yes, and the same thing happens in MOL. You go from seeing an obstacle in
your path that you can't seem to get around to seeing several choices around
that obstacle, a different percpetion.
I don't think what happened in the "conflict thread" with Bruce was an
example of either MOL or seeing the same objective situation differently.
There is _NEVER_ such a thing as an 'objective' view. _NEVER_. C'mon Rick,
It's all about perceptions. _HOW_ can someone have an 'objective'
perception?
That's because I think the objective situation was somewhat different when
I
read Bruce's posts as part of the "conflict" thread and when I read them
afterwards.
Yes, your imagination the second time over wrote your imagination the first
time.
The difference, I think, was the affective component of those
perceptions, which were part of my perceptions of the posts when I was in
the midst of the conflict but not part of those perceptions when I read
the
posts afterward. This, of course, is consistent with your idea that
perceptions often include an emotional component.
Great observation. So yes, emotion can and does affect what we perceive.
Maybe it was _only_ the affective aspect that was different, maybe not.
Emotions, as I hope to show shortly, _can_ affect what your senses pick up.
Have you ever been in pain, say, had a bad tooth ache, and you tried to
concentrate on looking at and perceiving the subtlety's of a great work of
art or for you, listening to an intricate piece of music. Do you think you
perceive the same performance with or without that added pain? Of course we
are _ALWAYS_ in some state of feeling. As Bill like to point out. Zero, does
not mean the absence of.
I think my own emotions became part of my perception of Bruce's posts when
we were in the conflict.
Emotions are _always_ a part of every perception. Not always noticable, but
always present.
When I re-read Bruce's posts that emotional component was no longer
present.
_AN_ emotional component was present, just not the one that helped set you
off.
So I perceived Bruce's posts differently during and after the conflict
because the objective basis of those perceptions was different during and
after the conflict.
It had _nothing_ to do with 'objectivety'. It had all to do with your
different perceptions, caused by a number of different factors.
The emotional component that existed during the
conflict probably led me to perceive Bruce's posts as "baiting".
Only part of it. The emotional component would not have reached such a state
unless it had 'cause', either real or imagined. I would think in this case,
your imagination played a big role in you perceptions. Your emotions were
the major 'cause' (i.e. the error you experienced) of your actions
The absence
of that component after the conflict let me see those same posts as honest
challenges or questions about what PCT can explain. The conflict would
probably not have escalated as it did if I had simply waited until the
emotional component of my perceptions of Bruce's post had disappeared.
Emotional components do not disappear. They _change_, but are always
present. At least that's the way I currently see it.
Nice post Rick. I'm real glad you find this stuff might be worthwhile
exploring.
Marc
from [Marc Abrams (2003.12.19.2145)]
[From Bruce Gregory (2003.12.19.2113)]
He had to change what he was paying attention to. Is that what you mean?
_EXACTLY_. Thank you.
Again, this calls for you to pay attention to things that you have not
been paying attention to. Conscious control seems to require that we
pay attention, and the bandwidth of attention is surprisingly narrow
(Tor Norretranders, _The User Illusion_).
Yes, Yes, and Yes. Another problem is often we don't know what we _should_
pay attention to. Our control systems unfortunately do not all work in
unison for the better good of the entire individual. What is good for one
control system (eating a good pastrami sandwich) is real bad for another
(cholesterol, and diet) and 'conflicts' like this are not easily
resolved. (I speak from personal experience here :-))
Marc
[Martin Taylor 2003.12.19.1303]
[From Bruce Gregory (2003.12.19.1112)]
[Martin Taylor 2003.12.19.0009 EST]
If you are talking about a belief, maybe you observe something that
is an input into the function that defines the nature of the belief.To the extent that beliefs are perceptions, they are not perceptions of
the physical world.
No? I believe my tea is hot. Is that not a perception of the physical
world. I believe F=ma. Is that not a perception of the phsyical
world? I believe politicians sometimes tell the truth. Is that not a
perception of the real world?
Nor, apparently can they be manipulated in the
fashion that objects can be manipulated. Beliefs are thoughts.
So, I would say, are other perceptions. Some very concrete
perceptions are not very controllable: I perceive that mountain over
there, but I am unable to act so as to be able to perceive it over
_there_ instead. Some beliefs are quite controllable. I want to
believe X is my friend (which I don't now believe). I act toward X so
that I perceive his feelings toward me to become more friendly. I am
controlling my belief in just the way I control any perception. But,
as with my perception of the mountain, I would find it difficult to
act so that I ceased to believe F=ma.
they are
formulations in language.
I think that may be true for some people. For others they may be more
pictorial, and for yet others, they may be hybrid. But what is
language except another variety ofcontrollable perception?
(You can say that I believe that the wall is
solid. If you use the term in that way, animals as well as humans have
beliefs.
Yep.
I am using the term to refer to what we normally call beliefs,
e.g., the universe is governed by universal laws.)
Those, too.
No matter what you
think of Saddam Hussein, you see pretty much the same guy as I do.
Perhaps, but I think there are many Iraqis who don't. It sounds as
though you are limiting perception (of Saddam) to physical appearance.
I do grant that there may be occasions when perceptions of different
kinds are given different labels, and it may well be useful to keep
in mind that a "belief' is different in kind from a perception that
we call "event". But I don't think it is useful to say that a belief
is not a perception at all.
Martin