FW: Quantum Theory and Control Theory

[From Jason Gosnell (2005.03.29.1930CST)]

Rick Marken (2005.03.29.1700)]

So you really can't doubt or be wrong about your perceptions but you
certainly can have doubts (and be wrong about) the basis of your
perceptions.

This shows the power of reasoning "based on" previous experience. Or is it
even reasoning? It may just be "based on my previous experience" or what we
call learning. For example, when I see a ball roll behind a couch, my bare
visual perception is that the ball has disappeared...but I know from
previous experience which I remember that the ball is simply behind the
couch whether I can see it or not. In fact, infants who are primarily
sensing-perceiving without the aid of reason or memory or previous
experience--I don't know which, maybe it is symbolic thinking-memory that is
the issue--just sense that the ball has disappeared. They don't know that it
has rolled behind the couch. There is an age when this phenomenon changes to
knowing the ball is back there even though they can't see it. So, this may
be similar to questioning the basis of my perceptions, but all I am doing is
drawing on previous experience. This may be what allows the schizophrenic or
extremely neurotic person to grow out of his delusions--just experimentation
and learning.

Does this approximate the issue here?

Jason Gosnell

···

-----Original Message-----
From: Richard Marken [mailto:marken@MINDREADINGS.COM]
Sent: Tuesday, March 29, 2005 7:03 PM
To: CSGNET@listserv.uiuc.edu
Subject: Re: Quantum Theory and Control Theory

[From Rick Marken (2005.03.29.1700)]

Bruce Gregory (2005.0329.1917)

Martin Taylor (2005.03.29.17.26

Well, that's a lot longer than I had intended.

I agree with almost everything you say, but I do not see how your
analysis justifies the claim that I really see Nicole Kidman when, in
fact, I don't.

But you do see her. You just know, on other grounds, that it's not really
Nicole herself who is the basis of the perception. Just because you find out
that the basis of a perception is different than what you thought doesn't
mean that the perception itself wasn't real. My perception of a beautiful
rose doesn't become less real because the rose turns out to be silk and
fabric, that is, no rose at all.

Your analysis justifies the claim that I think I see
Nicole Kidman, and in fact I can assert with certainty that I think I
see Nicole Kidman, but that is all I can say with certainty, even if it
really was Nicole Kidman.

I think this is just hard to describe using informal terms. I think Martin's
analysis justifies the claim that you see (perceive) Nicole Kidman even
while you recognize that Nicole Kidman herself (as an external reality) may
not be the basis of that perception. I could say "I think I see a phone and
a computer" but the fact is that I see a phone and a computer; there is no
doubt about what I perceive. But I can question whether the basis of these
perceptions is actually a phone and a computer. I'm certain that it is, here
in my office, but I have been in stores where I have perceived phones and
computers that were not phones or computers; they were just very convincing
cardboard models.

So you really can't doubt or be wrong about your perceptions but you
certainly can have doubts (and be wrong about) the basis of your
perceptions.

Regards

Rick
--
Richard S. Marken
MindReadings.com
Home: 310 474 0313
Cell: 310 729 1400

--------------------

This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and
may contain privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use,
disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended
recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all copies
of the original message.
All electronic mail communications originating from or transmitted to
Bridgeway Center, Inc. are subject to monitoring. This message and the
information contained in it, which may consist of electronic data
attachments, are the confidential and proprietary communications of
Bridgeway Center, Inc. and are intended to be received only by the
individual or individuals to whom the message has been addressed If the
reader of this message is not the intended recipient, please take notice
that any use, copying, printing, forwarding or distribution of this message,
in any form, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in
error, please immediately notify the Bridgeway Center, Inc. Privacy Officer
at (850) 833-7540 and/or forward the message to hipaa@bridgeway.org and
delete or destroy all copies of this message.

[From Bill Powers (2005.03.29.1927 MST)]

Jason Gosnell (2005.03.29.1930CST) –

For example, when I see a ball
roll behind a couch, my bare

visual perception is that the ball has disappeared…

That’s the reality. You no longer perceive the ball, would be a better
way to put it, because that’s more just a description of the
experience.

but I know from previous
experience which I remember that the ball is simply behind the couch
whether I can see it or not.

This is what Martin Taylor was referring to as the other
perceptions, the perceptions about the first one. Those could be
mistaken – the ball may in fact have vaporized just after you lost sight
of it, though that’s not a high-probability guess. But high probability
or low, it is a guess and what it’s about is not reality (though the
guess itself undoubtedly happened).

In fact, infants who are
primarily

sensing-perceiving without the aid of reason or memory or previous

experience–I don’t know which, maybe it is symbolic thinking-memory that
is

the issue–just sense that the ball has disappeared. They don’t know that
it

has rolled behind the couch.

Gotta watch out there. They don’t know that it has – really? – rolled
behind the couch? That’s how we tend to invert theory and reality.
Physicist often speak as if the physical description tells us what is
REALLY happening, while our perceptions feed us illusions. But it’s the
other way around: the physical reality is the guess, which we think
explains the reality we experience.

There is an age when this
phenomenon changes to

knowing the ball is back there even though they can’t see it. So, this
may

be similar to questioning the basis of my perceptions, but all I am doing
is

drawing on previous experience. This may be what allows the schizophrenic
or

extremely neurotic person to grow out of his delusions–just
experimentation

and learning.

Does this approximate the issue here?

I’ll let you be the judge of that in the light of the discussion
above.

Best,

Bill P.

[From Jason Gosnell (2005.03.30. 1245CST)]

<Bill Powers (2005.03.29.1927 MST)>

<Gotta watch out there. They don’t know that it has – really? – rolled behind the couch? That’s how we tend to invert theory and reality. Physicist often speak as if the physical description tells us what is REALLY happening, while our perceptions feed us illusions. But it’s the other way around: the physical reality is the guess, which we think explains the reality we experience.>

Ahhhh…you caught me there. That’s right. Thanks for that note. Based on past experiences (these are perceptions I have stored in memory?) I am making some so-called “educated” guesses. I suppose that this is also one way we can get into real trouble in our personal lives–insisting on these guesses without investigating further with direct experience? Or, not being open to present moment available perceptions or experience. Of course, one may need to play the probabilities to some extent as well. This issue relevant to people I see in counseling and I guess a common factor in a lot of “problem” behaviors.

I find it interesting that Zen teachers often speak about this in the same way…they claim that there is some importance in knowing the difference between these descriptions, such as physicists give, and actual perceptions. They imply often that people prefer their inferences about perceptions over their perceptions and thus end up confusing themselves. They also imply that when people try to live completely in that reality of descriptions that they end up becoming wobbly (basically neurotic or “out of touch”) in terms of their daily functioning and therefore largely ineffective. I may not be representing this completely–this issue–but it seems similar or related to what you are clarifying here.

Thanks…Jason

All electronic mail communications originating from or transmitted to Bridgeway Center, Inc. are subject to monitoring. This message and the information contained in it, which may consist of electronic data attachments, are the confidential and proprietary communications of Bridgeway Center, Inc. and are intended to be received only by the individual or individuals to whom the message has been addressed If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, please take notice that any use, copying, printing, forwarding or distribution of this message, in any form, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please immediately notify the Bridgeway Center, Inc. Privacy Officer at (850) 833-7540 and/or forward the message to hipaa@bridgeway.org and delete or destroy all copies of this message.