Experienced world vs Boss Reality

[From Bill Powers (931123.1115 MST)]

Martin Taylor (931123.1010) --

I thought that one of the main features of PCT is that we
construct with our PIFs perceptual signals that an outside
observer would interpret as abstract perceptions of the world,
such as configurations, relations, and so forth.

We mustn't forget that the only "outside observers" we can
imagine (or be) are also human. The inside observer as well as
the outside observer interprets the outputs of PIFs as
configurations, relations, etc.. This does not seem like an
interpretation to the inside observer: it merely seems that
examples of configurations, relations, logic, and so forth
_exist_ as elements of the experienced world. When we, acting as
outside observers of another person, try to see what that other
person is controlling, we apply the very same perceptual
transformations: we still see the world in terms of intensity,
sensation, configuration ... system concept. Even if these are
not correct or complete descriptions of human levels of
perception, there is _some_ correct list, and all human beings
experience a world in those terms. When they interpret the
behavior of other people, the actions and consequences involved
in that behavior are perceived in these same terms.

Our actions affect the world and the world affects our lowest
levels of perception, the intensity signals. My point is that we
have no awareness of the links through which actions affect
intensities. We have evolved to represent those links as higher-
level variables and processes, which we project into an external
world. If there are unknown transformations in the external world
that are equivalent in terms of the effects of actions on
intensities, there is no way we can detect them, because every
observer's world is subject to the same transformations. As a
result, we have no way to discover how human experience actually
maps onto Boss Reality -- our experience or anyone else's.

I thought that Bill's demo was to show that in the same way, by
learning to control a perception that was of a structure
intrinsically 4-dimensional, we could develop perceptual
signals that corresponded to what an outside observer would say
was a 4-D structure abstracted from the temporal and spatial
interrelations of point intensity fluctuations.

This is a possibility that I acknowledged with a joke about
disappearing while seated in front of my computer. My intent was
not, however, to suggest that this was a real possibility. It was
to illustrate how we are constrained to controlling a projection
of the Boss Reality into the space of human perception -- and
that the two might be very different. The outside observer of
whom you speak, if human, would be no more able to tell that we
were affecting a fourth spatial dimension than we, the
controllers, are. The only way to do this experiment is in
imagination, in a simulated mathematical world.

I think that the simpler illustration of my post this morning
probably makes the point more directly, without dragging in side-



Bill P.