From [Marc Abrams (2004.11.29.1107)
In a message dated 11/29/2004 10:30:57 AM Eastern Standard Time, powers_w@FRONTIER.NET writes:
[From Bill Powers (2004.11.29.0656 MST)]
Of course, we knew that is how psychology began in the 19th Century. Then it >changed, with Watson, to the study of âbehaviorâ â that is the externally >observable activities of organisms.
No Bill, it did not change psychology from the study of the mind to the study of âbehavior.â What changed was the METHODS SOME used in order to study the mind.
Watson and others thought that they would be able to make the study of the mind âscientificâ by being able to set up experiments and observing behavior which they assumed was simply a reflection of mind.
In the 1950s the sway of behaviorism was >almost complete, but the advent of >electronic computers then began to suggest >the idea of modeling mental >activities â that is, processes in the brain. So >cognitive psychology returned to >the scene. PCT is basically a cognitive theory of >human behavior, since it deals >with proposed functions that are carried out in the >brain, ranging from sensory to >conceptual.
Not quite accurate. Your on target about the computers, but you seem to forget the work of James, Gestalt, and many other who scoffed at behaviorism.
Cog SCI never LEFT.
You bet, just like yours.
This is your unsubstantiated claim.
No, it is my proposal. I make no claims about its correctness. The proposal >clearly needs to be investigated further. Do you know of any proposal in this area >that doesnât? Do you object to my saying that cognitive functions require the >ability to handle categories, sequences, logical and other rule-driven processes, >principles, and system concepts? Or do you just object because youâre feeling >objectionable?
No Bill, I âobjectâ to the fact that your âproposalsâ are set in dogma and concrete and as I said in my last post that crossed in the mail with this one, I apologize for trying to unknowingly usurp your position. I love your ideas and I think you did a heckuva first effort. I just donât love all your ideas and your rigidness has been now problematic, but now understandable.
>That is an extremely uninformative sentence, >since you don't say what you disagree with, >why you disagree, or what you propose in its >place, not to mention any evidence you have >that my proposal is wrong or someone else's >is right. So now we know that you disagree, >but nothing beyond that. You are showing >nothing beyond your capacity to be >disagreeable.
It was not intended to be informative, simply descriptive of my feelings.
Are you interested in the specifics? I won't give you the potential answers I have but I would be more than happy to share the specific concerns I have.
So far the only basis for detecting the difference lies in the believer or thinker â >we have no externally-observable evidence about these things. Since you >propose no alternative and offer no evidence (external or subjective) against my >version, again all we know is that you disagree, which is not very educational.
Are you really interested in being âeducatedâ after 50 years of work? I seriously doubt it
The levels are defined experientially
A fancy term for introspection, which is in turn a fancy term for an idea. NOTHING more NOTHING less. This in and of itself is no crime. WE all must start somewhere. This has never advanced beyond this stage, even after many attempts.
in terms of classes of perceptions which I have defined with some care. What >are you asking for beside that? Sensory data can be affected by your actions, >and to control sense-based data you must act. Imagined perceptions, being >internally generated, can be controlled without motor action and are unaffected >by actions on the outside world.
Bill, your whole concept of âperceptionâ is something I have an extremely hard time with. I find it does not offer any benefit over the more popular definition and simply makes things extremely difficult to deal with at the higher levels you propose.
Using your definition of a perception is like trying to build a house with toothpicks. It might be theoretically possible but its practicality is meaningless.
I also have a problem with the STRICT dependencies REQUIRED of a pure hierarchy. You have no wig room. Are you trying to tell me that ALL perceptions are constructed with the same aspects (levels) and that these constructions are not influenced by imagination and emotion? I just donât buy it.
That is indeed an interesting question. My current opinion is that they are >distinguished mainly by the place where they occur in the brain. Other than that, >the neural signals are indistinguishable from each other.
This is NOT true on a number of counts. Neural signals ARE distinguishable. That is one reason we are able to see the fMRIâs. They also vary in a few different ways. âPatternsâ as Churchland and others believe is how our brain functions. These are the âpatternsâ you ridiculed Gregory about
How is red different from blue, not to mention salty?
In the end Bill everything of mass is composed of atoms. Although we donât know why certain chemical reactions take place we do know that they do. That has helped us in the field of chemistry. That also distinguishes physics from engineering.
âKnowingâ has a lot of different meanings and significance
We are unlikely to confuse them, yet when you ask yourself what is different >between the two perceptions, the best you can come up with is that this one is >red, while that one is blue. Paul Churchlandâs ânetwork theory of knowledgeâ >seems to agree with that for other reasons I canât claim to understand. The i>dea >is that the subjective sense of meaning we get from perceptions comes from the >context of all the other perceptions existing at the same time, or in the same >general location over time. The people concerned with âqualiaâ are trying to >answer this question, too, so far without success.
How about this; We donât really âknowâ anything. We sense and we learn. We avoid pain and seek pleasure and learn to do both. What we âperceiveâ simply helps us control for each of those things. Our bodies tell us through both chemical and neural control systems how we are doing in controlling for those things. Our chemical systems help guide us.
Any label and name we put on anything is a construct of our culture and society. If it were not for the existence other people and our need to communicate with them and have sex with them there would be no reason to have names or labels for anything. So âredâ and âblueâ are just different ways we both can communicate about something we have learned is a color. I doubt very much if you could communicate the concept of dyslexia with an African bushman.
Neither models nor theories do anything by themselves. Using PCT as the >organizing principle, however, I have made a great many distinctions and >propositions about the content of consciousness.
Yes, you have and I have thouroughly enjoyed everyone Iâve read. That is one reason I have thought I was doing PCT. I donât agree with all your ideas but I think they are well thought out and thought provoking.
They may demand it, but if they think they get it from any current theory theyâre >deluding themselves. I canât even imagine what youâre talking about. I donât know >of any psychological theory that explains anything about these subjects, >anything at all. Do you?
You see Bill, THIS attitude is NOT a good one. No, I donât think that they have a good understanding of why behavior takes place. But they are NOT delusional. It works just enough so that people think that its OK.
If you speak to any clinician, they all have their own version of a psychological theory that is a conglomeration of many different ideas. There are no âbehavioristsâ out there. In fact even behaviorists are not really THEORETICAL behaviorists.
You can explain PCT in terms of BOTH Cog SCI and behaviorism and you SHOULD. You have often said PCT is a combination of both. Why not try to marry both sides rather than divorce the two sides?
With approvals like yours, I donât need enemies.
Bill, its ONLY the people who really care that will tell you that you have bad breath.
Of course. I try to stay honest. Do you know of any complete theories, or for that >matter any theories of human organization that are even as complete and self->consistent as PCT for all its shortcomings? I should also ask, are you more >impressed by people who make exaggerated claims about what they know, or >those who understate what they know?
Bill, NONE of these are issues with me. It is not the damn perceived âshortcomingsâ real or imagined that I think are the problem. I donât think there is anything wrong with PCT.
It has been your unwillingness to look at new ideas, ESPECIALLY in trying to take a top down AS WELL as a bottom up approach to this. In order to take a top down approach you would have to, at least temporarily, abandon the hierarchy. You have refused to do this. Why? Why not have a joint project going on, attempting to look at the model from a higher level of abstraction to one that is less so. Maybe the model Iâm working on would replace the top three levels in your model? Who knows? But if you donât attempt it you have nothing. There have been many who have come on this list who might have been able to add some insight if their ideas were able to be heard.
The hierarchy first of all is an observable fact.
NO, it is not. What does âupâ mean? To say that there are dependencies is one thing. To say the dependencies exist in a VERY CERTAIN ORDER is quite another.
It doesnât âdemandâ anything.
Mathematically it most certainly does, and since you are mathematically modeling the system, it matters a great deal. Sort of like saying it doesnât matter whether Iâm dealing with a function or relation. Your model demands a hierarchy.
The hierarchical aspect of the model was added to account for the way some >perceptions depend for their existence on others, and for the fact that it is >necessary to alter some perceptions in order to control others.
This is fine, except I believe a network might be a better solution. As I have said many times NO BIG DEAL here.
I think what you are bothered by is not a lack of imagination and emotion in the >model, but the fact that I have accounted for both of them without introducing any >special entities that have whatever (unnamed) properties are required to produce >the phenomena of imagination and emotion. I do not see these things as >separate special subsystems; they are simply ways in which the whole system >can behave. This proposal handles every single known property of imagination >and emotion and does so in some detail, taking into account both sensory and >conceptual aspects of each, as well as explaining their relationship to goals and >actions.
You figured out what is bothering me, but misunderstand what it is. Martin Taylor hit on it the other day in a reply to Rick.
Your model is so general that it becomes meaningless for any understanding of a specific use it might have and at the same time it is so specific, you canât easily apply it to any one specific area with it.
To be more specific. Yes, everything that takes place in our bodies is ultimately made up of neural signals and chemical reactions. The problem is that PCT is so general it can apply to ANY control process in the body, which is wonderful. You now have a general theory. How do I apply it? YOU need to be able to show folks how to APPLY your theory for their use. When you have done this, you have been successful. Think about Ed Ford and the other folks. People will not simply buy something and have no idea what they are going to do with it once they get it.
THIS WILL NOT HAPPEN Bill. I KNOW you think your theory should be self-evident to others. BUT it isnât. So now what are you going to do?
My suggestion is to look at a âhigher levelâ control model that others might be able to use
Do you know of any other proposed theory that can do that?
NO, and THAT is why it is _SO- exasperating. I KNOW what people are looking for and I think PCT or some derivative can provide it. If you wonât I will try like hell to do so. Iâm hoping we can work with each other on this.
I seek no recognition for my work. Iâm just having so much fun. It is keeping me functioning and motivated and would LOVE to be able to say I contributed something positive to both mankind and PCT.
Of course. Have I ever said otherwise? I have specifically proposed that the neural >signals associated with conscious experience are those in the afferent pathways, >the pathways passing from sensory organs to higher centers in the brain. Also >specifically, I have proposed that perception is NOT associated with outgoing >signals or collateral signals â that is, reference signals descending from one level >to lower levels, or error signals that excite the output functions. All we know >directly is input, not output.
Bill, I donât want to break the news to you, but our feelings and emotions are chemically based and I also believe it is the chemical concentrations in our bodies that provide the intrinsic signals for motivation. Our sensory apparatus provides another means and so does our imagination. Perceptions do not originate in a single location, nor from a single source. They are NOT homogenous and we really need to understand how the THREE components interact. I believe this is doable. âPerceptionsâ are not âjust neural signalsâ. They are cognitive constructs that allow us to navigate the environment and deal with others.
HOW perceptions (my definition) are constructed is central to also understanding what type and kinds of reference levels exist in each of us.
Anyway, these are simply proposals, to be dealt with using ordinary methods of >science. I donât believe them; I simply offer them as the best ideas I have been >able to come up with. What I believe, or what you believe, is of no interest in itself >and has no bearing on what will be discovered through modeling and >experimenting. Man proposes, experiment disposes.
This is HOGWASH. If people do not find your work interesting they will not bother with it. If this statement were true you would not demand from others what you yourself cannot produce. BY this I mean you want and need others on this list to hear and talk about YOUR ideas. These âideasâ are not models nor are they substantiated in any data. Yet if someone has the gaul to come on the net with either their own ideas, you demand a model and a justification.
What you forget Bill is that this is a FORUM. There are others on this list BESIDES you and Rick, and although_YOU_ might disagree with someone, someone else might like the idea and even find it useful.
>Of course I haven't "integrated these ideas into a working model." >Neither has anyone else.
Why should anyone? Itâs YOUR theory and YOUR list.
>We don't even know how to model the perception of a cube (order >3) in different orientations, or a plate of spaghetti, or a face with >different expressions on it.
NO, and with your hierarchy you won't for the foreseeable future either, _IF_ ever. Those toothpicks get mighty tough to deal with.
> That's why there are no "complete" working models of higher >levels, either in PCT or in any other field of theory. We don't know >how those perceptual systems work.
NOT YET anyway and unfortunately on your path and your current model I believe you will _NEVER_ be able to model the 'higher levels'
By implying that you know of other approaches that do not have these same >lacks or even worse ones.
But I think I do Bill. Is that a crime punishable by death?
And of course I am concerned about what you convey to others who have not yet >read my own words, and knowing only what you have told them may never do so.
Why? I thought your words and work speak for themselves? What can I possibly tell someone on the net that you could not refute with data in 5 seconds?
I donât know â you havenât said anything yet that would enable me to judge.
Your lying.
When you lay out your theory and the evidence to back it up I may have >something to say â âthanksâ if youâve added to our knowledge or ideas,
Yeah, you mean if I have helped sell YOURS. NO thanks
something else if youâve been bluffing. So far Iâve seen nothing to show it isnât all a >big bluff. Someday you will have to show your hole cards; you canât drive >everyone out of the game by continuing to raise the bet. The rules of science >forbid that. I want to see your winning hand. Iâm calling you.
I donât know where you think I come off OWEING you squat. The way you have treated me has been a disgrace and I see no apology for it either.
I donât see an apology for hanging up on me when I recently asked you to lift the block you might have had on my e-mails because I wanted to share something with you and since we spoke a few times after Maryâs passing I made the huge mistake of thinking we might be able to talk.
Bill, you are a wonderful THINKER, but something else as a human being. I KNOW Iâm NOT doing PCT and Iâm very much content with that.
Marc
