Happiness and scenery

[Martin Taylor 2019.03.19. 23.34]

For those interested in a PCT approach to emotion I offer a

phenomenon from yesterday’s Scientific Reports weekly digest in the
“Earth and Environmental Sciences” section. The full text is at
.
Does anyone have a good supportable PCT explanation for this
phenomenon? Here’s the abstract…

···

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-019-40854-6?WT.ec_id=SREP-20190318&sap-outbound-id=B6896327AF0EDF9BDB9458D9505F5700B4B9C719

beautiful settings boost people’s happiness? The answer to this
question has long remained elusive due to a paucity of
large-scale data on environmental aesthetics and individual
happiness. Here, we draw on two novel datasets: first,
individual happiness data from the smartphone app, Mappiness ,
and second, crowdsourced ratings of the “scenicness� of
photographs taken across England from the online game Scenic-Or-Not .
We find that individuals are happier in more scenic locations,
even when we account for a range of factors such as the activity
the individual was engaged in at the time, weather conditions
and the income of local inhabitants. Crucially, this
relationship holds not only in natural environments, but in
built-up areas too, even after controlling for the presence of
green space. Our results provide evidence that the aesthetics of
the environments that policymakers choose to build or demolish
may have consequences for our everyday wellbeing.


Martin

Hi Martin, this finding is well known, there are books about it - The Nature Fix is excellent - and we have a network too www.NatureMind.net.

In terms of PCT, I’ve had many thoughts that are coming together…here are my notes and ramblings, open source!

NatureMind domains

Nature provides a wider and deeper ‘palette’ of layered perceptions that typically outcompete artificial environments in the following ways:

The need it serves is exploration, connection & creation which is the intrinsic need of an infant during attachment experiences. It is thus that drives our social evolution. Without nurture it becomes need for power and control over others

Can’t explain without

  • intrinsic reference points

  • child development

  • modes of mind

Otherwise theories for child and adult different

Basic behaviours at root are search, find, investigate, utilise, recombine…(woods versus toy shop) - exploited.

That’s why successful people have these profound nature experiences.

That’s why ‘mystery’ images are more interesting

Predict that play is less ‘imaginary’ within nature as not necessary

Feedback functions constrain perception and therefore constrain control. Nature provides a wide feedback function for perceptual control at multiple multiple levels a mapping into more, important CVs

For each one, why is nature better?

BREADTH - Control of attention & observation across natural landscapes

MALLEABILITY- Control of objects - intensity, shape, relationships, meaning - sticks stones and mud kitchens

SIMPLE AGENTS - Perception of other agents; care; compassion with animals

Maintaining self world concept identity confidence

Development of Narrative of one’s life and family and community

Perception of World existential awe awe bigger than self spiritually

Each level has a complex emotion associated with its perception (e.g. freedom, mastery, awe, connectedness) and helps go to that experience when needed in everyday life when experiencing a life challenge through remembering and metaphorically utilising that nature memory

Safe risks and managing conflict

Scientific method

Other theories:

Attentional resource theory - less distractions from deeper thought?

Engages the best bits of default network - better understood as reorganisation

Emotional attunement to natural beauty

Emotion regulation miles ruchardson

Biophilia - rework as preferred unconscious perceptions - if your life goals and sense of control depend on it you can overcome genetic fear of snakes so conversely can ‘overcome’ genetic need for nature NB anorexia

Roger ulrich Miyazaki - Parasympathetic- [me = reflective]

Immune system - Qing Li - tree smells

Escape from arbitrary consumerism

“Inhibition uses up cognitive fuel�

P45 “I feel I have time and I feel I have space�

Many possessions in contemporary life

Bottom up

Nasal Smells activate approach behaviour

Noise pollution Lancet 2005

Heart rate variability measurements

Music affinity and birdsong

Fractal imagery - Richard Taylor

Alpha brain waves - wakefully relaxed (? Passive observation?); same as music; parahippocampus. But why? Could it be the same as functional branching of control hierarchies in the brain?!

Eye tracking

Search trajectories are fractal!

‘Resonance’

Need to add biotensegrity

Resolve conflict by passively observing own imagination mode?

···

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-019-40854-6?WT.ec_id=SREP-20190318&sap-outbound-id=B6896327AF0EDF9BDB9458D9505F5700B4B9C719

beautiful settings boost people’s happiness? The answer to this
question has long remained elusive due to a paucity of
large-scale data on environmental aesthetics and individual
happiness. Here, we draw on two novel datasets: first,
individual happiness data from the smartphone app, Mappiness ,
and second, crowdsourced ratings of the “scenicness� of
photographs taken across England from the online game Scenic-Or-Not .
We find that individuals are happier in more scenic locations,
even when we account for a range of factors such as the activity
the individual was engaged in at the time, weather conditions
and the income of local inhabitants. Crucially, this
relationship holds not only in natural environments, but in
built-up areas too, even after controlling for the presence of
green space. Our results provide evidence that the aesthetics of
the environments that policymakers choose to build or demolish
may have consequences for our everyday wellbeing.


Martin

[Eetu Pikkarainen 2019-03-20_11:03:29 UTC]

Thanks Martin for interesting and important question and Warren for great wealth of material to thought!

I have a simple idea. Biosemiotician Kalevi Kull has written that it is the ability to move which connects animals to the location. Instead of that plants reside where they happen to
land. Thus we have a deep inherited potential and need to control the quality of the surroundings where we live. Evolutionary psychology has shown that we generally prefer certain kind of scenery which for example reminds for the savanna environments of our
forefathers id Africa. Still we seldom have a possibility to remain in the best possible scenery but our other controlled perceptions and stabilized environments require otherwise. So there seems to be a low level internal conflict existing in our hierarchies
all the time when make our living in cities. It could be quite similar as the low level inflammation in our bodies caused by unhealthy food and ways of living. When we get sometimes to a beautiful environment we first simply enjoy it because we are all the
time controlling (low level) for it and secondly the stress state caused by the low level conflict resolves for a while.

···

Eetu

From: Warren Mansell csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Sent: Wednesday, March 20, 2019 8:26 AM
To: mmt-csg@mmtaylor.net;
mmt@mmtaylor.net
Cc: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: Happiness and scenery

Hi Martin, this finding is well known, there are books about it - The Nature Fix is excellent - and we have a network too
www.NatureMind.net.

In terms of PCT, I’ve had many thoughts that are coming together…here are my notes and ramblings, open source!

NatureMind domains

Nature provides a wider and deeper ‘palette’ of layered perceptions that typically outcompete artificial environments in the following ways:

The need it serves is exploration, connection & creation which is the intrinsic need of an infant during attachment experiences. It is thus that drives our social evolution. Without
nurture it becomes need for power and control over others

Can’t explain without

  • intrinsic reference points

  • child development

  • modes of mind

Otherwise theories for child and adult different

Basic behaviours at root are search, find, investigate, utilise, recombine…(woods versus toy shop) - exploited.

That’s why successful people have these profound nature experiences.

That’s why ‘mystery’ images are more interesting

Predict that play is less ‘imaginary’ within nature as not necessary

Feedback functions constrain perception and therefore constrain control. Nature provides a wide feedback function for perceptual control at multiple multiple levels a mapping into more,
important CVs

For each one, why is nature better?

BREADTH - Control of attention & observation across natural landscapes

MALLEABILITY- Control of objects - intensity, shape, relationships, meaning - sticks stones and mud kitchens

SIMPLE AGENTS - Perception of other agents; care; compassion with animals

Maintaining self world concept identity confidence

Development of Narrative of one’s life and family and community

Perception of World existential awe awe bigger than self spiritually

Each level has a complex emotion associated with its perception (e.g. freedom, mastery, awe, connectedness) and helps go to that experience when needed in everyday life when experiencing
a life challenge through remembering and metaphorically utilising that nature memory

Safe risks and managing conflict

Scientific method

Other theories:

Attentional resource theory - less distractions from deeper thought?

Engages the best bits of default network - better understood as reorganisation

Emotional attunement to natural beauty

Emotion regulation miles ruchardson

Biophilia - rework as preferred unconscious perceptions - if your life goals and sense of control depend on it you can overcome genetic fear of snakes so conversely can ‘overcome’ genetic
need for nature NB anorexia

Roger ulrich Miyazaki - Parasympathetic- [me = reflective]

Immune system - Qing Li - tree smells

Escape from arbitrary consumerism

“Inhibition uses up cognitive fuel�

P45 “I feel I have time and I feel I have space�

Many possessions in contemporary life

Bottom up

Nasal Smells activate approach behaviour

Noise pollution Lancet 2005

Heart rate variability measurements

Music affinity and birdsong

Fractal imagery - Richard Taylor

Alpha brain waves - wakefully relaxed (? Passive observation?); same as music; parahippocampus. But why? Could it be the same as functional branching of control hierarchies in the brain?!

Eye tracking

Search trajectories are fractal!

‘Resonance’

Need to add biotensegrity

Resolve conflict by passively observing own imagination mode?

On 20 Mar 2019, at 03:44, Martin Taylor (mmt-csg@mmtaylor.net via csgnet Mailing List) csgnet@lists.illinois.edu wrote:

[Martin Taylor 2019.03.19. 23.34]

For those interested in a PCT approach to emotion I offer a phenomenon from yesterday’s Scientific Reports weekly digest in the “Earth and Environmental Sciences” section. The full text is at

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-019-40854-6?WT.ec_id=SREP-20190318&sap-outbound-id=B6896327AF0EDF9BDB9458D9505F5700B4B9C719. Does anyone have a good supportable PCT explanation for this phenomenon? Here’s the abstract…

Happiness is Greater in More Scenic Locations

·
Chanuki Illushka Seresinhe,

·
Tobias Preis,

·
George MacKerron &

·
Helen Susannah Moat

Scientific Reports**, volume****9**, Article number: 4498 (2019)

Does spending time in beautiful settings boost people’s happiness? The answer to this question has long remained elusive due to a paucity of large-scale data on environmental aesthetics and individual happiness.
Here, we draw on two novel datasets: first, individual happiness data from the smartphone app,
Mappiness, and second, crowdsourced ratings of the “scenicness� of photographs taken across England from the online game
Scenic-Or-Not . We find that individuals are happier in more scenic locations, even when we account for a range of factors such as the activity the individual was engaged in at the time, weather conditions and the income of local inhabitants. Crucially,
this relationship holds not only in natural environments, but in built-up areas too, even after controlling for the presence of green space. Our results provide evidence that the aesthetics of the environments that policymakers choose to build or demolish
may have consequences for our everyday wellbeing.


Martin

[Eva de Hullu 2019-03-20_14:47:29 UTC]

So the question is: how can we explain from a PCT perspective why people experience this sense of happiness when they find themselves in natural scenery?

My thought is that it’s not the case that we have an innate reference for the best scenery, but that the sense of happiness comes from taking a step towards control. First, as you find yourself looking at the vast landscape, you may experience a loss of control. The world is so much larger than you could fathom. In the mountains, at sea, in the sky: a single human being has no meaning there. But then, in staying in this situation, you could look at the universe and experience yourself as part of this universe. You know what astronauts call the overview effect - when they look at Earth disappearing into the distance, they experience a sense of connectedness with the planet like never before. From a PCT perspective, this sounds like going up a level. You look at the universe, and look at yourself looking at that universe.Â

Once you go up a level, conflicts below that level can disappear. From the perspective of the universe, what does it matter what I’ll be wearing today?

Eva

···

On Wed, Mar 20, 2019 at 12:38 PM Eetu Pikkarainen csgnet@lists.illinois.edu wrote:

[Eetu Pikkarainen 2019-03-20_11:03:29 UTC]

Â

Thanks Martin for interesting and important question and Warren for great wealth of material to thought!

Â

I have a simple idea. Biosemiotician Kalevi Kull has written that it is the ability to move which connects animals to the location. Instead of that plants reside where they happen to
land. Thus we have a deep inherited potential and need to control the quality of the surroundings where we live. Evolutionary psychology has shown that we generally prefer certain kind of scenery which for example reminds for the savanna environments of our
forefathers id Africa. Still we seldom have a possibility to remain in the best possible scenery but our other controlled perceptions and stabilized environments require otherwise. So there seems to be a low level internal conflict existing in our hierarchies
all the time when make our living in cities. It could be quite similar as the low level inflammation in our bodies caused by unhealthy food and ways of living. When we get sometimes to a beautiful environment we first simply enjoy it because we are all the
time controlling (low level) for it and secondly the stress state caused by the low level conflict resolves for a while.

Â

Â

Eetu

Â

From: Warren Mansell csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Sent: Wednesday, March 20, 2019 8:26 AM
To: mmt-csg@mmtaylor.net;
mmt@mmtaylor.net
Cc: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: Happiness and scenery

Â

Hi Martin, this finding is well known, there are books about it - The Nature Fix is excellent - and we have a network too
www.NatureMind.net.

Â

In terms of PCT, I’ve had many thoughts that are coming together…here are my notes and ramblings, open source!

Â

 NatureMind domains

Â

Nature provides a wider and deeper ‘palette’ of layered perceptions that typically outcompete artificial environments in the following ways:

Â

The need it serves is exploration, connection & creation which is the intrinsic need of an infant during attachment experiences. It is thus that drives our social evolution. Without
nurture it becomes need for power and control over othersÂ

Â

Can’t explain without

  • intrinsic reference points
  • child development
  • modes of mind

Â

Otherwise theories for child and adult different

Â

Â

Basic behaviours at root are search, find, investigate, utilise, recombine…(woods versus toy shop) - exploited.Â

Â

That’s why successful people have these profound nature experiences.Â

Â

That’s why ‘mystery’ images are more interestingÂ

Â

Predict that play is less ‘imaginary’ within nature as not necessaryÂ

Â

Feedback functions constrain perception and therefore constrain control. Nature provides a wide feedback function for perceptual control at multiple multiple levels a mapping into more,
important CVsÂ

For each one, why is nature better?

Â

BREADTH - Control of attention & observation across natural landscapesÂ

Â

MALLEABILITY- Control of objects - intensity, shape, relationships, meaning - sticks stones and mud kitchens Â

Â

SIMPLE AGENTS Â - Perception of other agents; care; compassion with animalsÂ

Â

Maintaining self world concept identity confidenceÂ

Â

Development of Narrative of one’s life and family and communityÂ

Â

Perception of World existential awe awe bigger than self  spirituallyÂ

Â

Each level has a complex emotion associated with its perception (e.g. freedom, mastery, awe, connectedness) and helps go to that experience when needed in everyday life when experiencing
a life challenge through remembering and metaphorically utilising that nature memoryÂ

Â

Safe risks and managing conflict

Â

Scientific methodÂ

Â

Other theories:

Attentional resource theory - less distractions from deeper thought?

Engages the best bits of default network - better understood as reorganisationÂ

Emotional attunement to natural beautyÂ

Emotion regulation miles ruchardson

Biophilia - rework as preferred unconscious perceptions - if your life goals and sense of control depend on it you can overcome genetic fear of snakes so conversely can ‘overcome’ genetic
need for nature NB anorexiaÂ

Roger ulrich Miyazaki - Parasympathetic- [me = reflective]

Immune system - Qing Li - tree smellsÂ

Escape from arbitrary consumerismÂ

Â

“Inhibition uses up cognitive fuel�

P45 “I feel I have time and I feel I have space�

Many possessions in contemporary life

Bottom up

Nasal Smells activate approach behaviourÂ

Noise pollution Lancet 2005

Heart rate variability measurementsÂ

Music affinity and birdsong

Â

Fractal imagery - Richard Taylor

Alpha brain waves - wakefully relaxed (? Passive observation?); same as music; parahippocampus. But why? Could it be the same as functional branching of control hierarchies in the brain?!

Eye tracking

Search trajectories are fractal!

‘Resonance’Â

Need to add biotensegrity

Resolve conflict by passively observing own imagination mode?

Â

Â

Â

Â

On 20 Mar 2019, at 03:44, Martin Taylor (mmt-csg@mmtaylor.net via csgnet Mailing List) csgnet@lists.illinois.edu wrote:

[Martin Taylor 2019.03.19. 23.34]

For those interested in a PCT approach to emotion I offer a phenomenon from yesterday’s Scientific Reports weekly digest in the “Earth and Environmental Sciences” section. The full text is at

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-019-40854-6?WT.ec_id=SREP-20190318&sap-outbound-id=B6896327AF0EDF9BDB9458D9505F5700B4B9C719. Does anyone have a good supportable PCT explanation for this phenomenon? Here’s the abstract…

Happiness is Greater in More Scenic Locations

·       Â
Chanuki Illushka Seresinhe,

·       Â
Tobias Preis,

·       Â
George MacKerron &

·       Â
Helen Susannah MoatÂ

Scientific Reports**, volume**** 9**, Article number: 4498 (2019)

Does spending time in beautiful settings boost people’s happiness? The answer to this question has long remained elusive due to a paucity of large-scale data on environmental aesthetics and individual happiness.
Here, we draw on two novel datasets: first, individual happiness data from the smartphone app,
Mappiness, and second, crowdsourced ratings of the “scenicness� of photographs taken across England from the online game
Scenic-Or-Not . We find that individuals are happier in more scenic locations, even when we account for a range of factors such as the activity the individual was engaged in at the time, weather conditions and the income of local inhabitants. Crucially,
this relationship holds not only in natural environments, but in built-up areas too, even after controlling for the presence of green space. Our results provide evidence that the aesthetics of the environments that policymakers choose to build or demolish
may have consequences for our everyday wellbeing.


Martin

Â

[Rick Marken 2019-03-20_11:23:11]

[Martin Taylor 2019.03.19. 23.34]

For those interested in a PCT approach to emotion I offer a

phenomenon from yesterday’s Scientific Reports weekly digest in the
“Earth and Environmental Sciences” section. The full text is at
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-019-40854-6?WT.ec_id=SREP-20190318&sap-outbound-id=B6896327AF0EDF9BDB9458D9505F5700B4B9C719 .
Does anyone have a good supportable PCT explanation for this
phenomenon? Â

RM: Well, the last time I was asked for, and provided, a PCT explanation of a phenomenon it wasn’t that well received. So before I give my explanation why don’t you give yours. It should be the same as mine if we’re talking about the same PCT.

Best

Rick

···

Richard S. MarkenÂ

"Perfection is achieved not when you have nothing more to add, but when you
have nothing left to take away.�
                --Antoine de Saint-Exupery

[Rick Marken 2019-03-20_12:51:03]

WM: In terms of PCT, I’ve had many thoughts that are coming together…here are my notes and ramblings, open source! …

WM: Feedback functions constrain perception and therefore constrain control.

Â

RM: I can see how one could say that feedback functions constrain the effect that one’s actions can have on one’s perceptions. But I don’t see how one could say that feedback functions constrain perceptions. Feedback functions can certainly constrain your ability to control perceptions; but they don’t constrain the perceptions themselves. Â

RM: For example, consider lifting a load using a lever. The perception controlled is the height of the load off the ground. The feedback function is the ratio of the height of the load end of the lever (input, p) per the downward throw at your end of the lever (output, o). Call this ratio f. So p = f x o. The location of the fulcrum of the lever determines the value of f. When the fulcrum is close to the load, f >1; when the fulcrum is close to you, f <1.So the feedback function relating output to perception varies depending on the location of the fulcrum. When f>1 the lever provides mechanical advantage; the same output force will lift a load more when f>1 than when f<=1.Â

RM: The feedback function can, thus, be said to “constrain” your ability to control the perception of the height of the load off the ground in the sense that it determines how far above the ground you can lift the load given the limitations on the amount of force you can generate. If you are able to apply enough force to lift no more than a 100 lb load and your lever provides no mechanical advantage (f<=1) then you are constrained to being unable to produce a perception of a load >100 lbs being even slightly off the ground. If, however, you have a lever that provides considerable mechanical advantage (f>>1) then you will have no problem controlling your perception of a load > 100 lbs being as high above the ground as you choose (given a place to stand;-).

RM: So, again, feedback functions can put constraints our ability to affect (and, thus, control) our perceptions but they don’t constrain the perceptions themselves. I think the only things that can be thought of as “constraining” perception are sensory loss and/or brain damage. Â

Best

Rick

···

On Tue, Mar 19, 2019 at 11:26 PM Warren Mansell csgnet@lists.illinois.edu wrote:


Richard S. MarkenÂ

"Perfection is achieved not when you have nothing more to add, but when you
have nothing left to take away.�
                --Antoine de Saint-Exupery

[Martin Taylor 2019.03.21.17.58]

I hadn't planned to offer an explanation. I broached the topic

because CSGnet has not had a thread in this area for a long time,
and it seemed to be one in which some of our more clinically
inclined lurkers might be interested. Furthermore, “happiness” is
not the kind emotion treated in Powers Chapter on the topic in B:CP
2005 an OCR’d scan is attached). Powers dealt almost exclusively
with emotions we might call “bad” or “unwelcome”, such as fear and
anger. I cannot see an explanation of “happiness”, “joy”, “relief”
and other “good” or “welcome” emotions.
One reason I hadn’t intended to propose an explanation was that over
a long period, much of the technical discussion about PCT has been
dominated by you and I, which I don’t think has been very healthy
for CSGnet. By introducing a rather different, and yet technical,
topic, I hoped that others; might be tempted to participate in the
discussion with their own ideas about PCT and about how it might
apply in this different situation, a situation not covered by the
attached chapter from B:CP 2005.
Another reason I hadn’t intended to take much of a role in the
discussion was that the phenomenon is not one about which i have
thought. At some future time I probably will, because I think it’s a
good thing to test the proposition (in which I believe) that all
psychological and social phenomena ultimately will be traced back to
PCT. So, I hope you will refrain from offering a PCT explanation
unless nobody else does (Warren didn’t; he just pointed to some
likely connections between PCT and the well known phenomenon, which
I certainly observe subjectively).
Martin

BCP_17_OCR.pdf (661 KB)

···

On 2019/03/20 2:26 PM, Richard Marken ( via
csgnet Mailing List) wrote:

rsmarken@gmail.com

[Rick Marken 2019-03-20_11:23:11]

[Martin Taylor 2019.03.19. 23.34]

          For those interested in a PCT approach to emotion I offer

a phenomenon from yesterday’s Scientific Reports weekly
digest in the “Earth and Environmental Sciences” section.
The full text is at https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-019-40854-6?WT.ec_id=SREP-20190318&sap-outbound-id=B6896327AF0EDF9BDB9458D9505F5700B4B9C719 .
Does anyone have a good supportable PCT explanation for
this phenomenon?

      RM: Well, the last time I was asked for, and provided, a

PCT explanation of a phenomenon it wasn’t that well received.
So before I give my explanation why don’t you give yours. It
should be the same as mine if we’re talking about the same
PCT.

[Rick Marken 2019-03-22_09:58:28]

[Martin Taylor 2019.03.21.17.58]

      RM: Well, the last time I was asked for, and provided, a

PCT explanation of a phenomenon it wasn’t that well received.
So before I give my explanation why don’t you give yours. It
should be the same as mine if we’re talking about the same
PCT.

MT: I hadn't planned to offer an explanation. I broached the topic

because CSGnet has not had a thread in this area for a long time,
and it seemed to be one in which some of our more clinically
inclined lurkers might be interested.

RM: Well, then it was a success. I particularly like Eva’s response. Especially this:

EdH: Once you go up a level, conflicts below that level can disappear. From the perspective of the universe, what does it matter what I’ll be wearing today?

Best

Rick

Â

···

Richard S. MarkenÂ

"Perfection is achieved not when you have nothing more to add, but when you
have nothing left to take away.�
                --Antoine de Saint-Exupery

[Martin Taylor 2019.03.25.11.23]

Nobody has followed up your suggestions, so to keep the ball rolling

a little, let me ask a couple of questions, preceded by a comment.
The comment is that the article makes a point of saying that it is
not “natural scenery” but the aesthetic quality of the local
scenery, whether rural or urban, that seems most to be associated
with happiness, but this association is in a population-based study,
not within individuals. So my first question is…

  1. Do you personally feel happier when viewing beautiful things and
    scenes than when viewing ugly ones, all else being equal, so far as
    you are aware? My other questions are about how you see the application of PCT,
    assuming that the effect is real,at least for enough people to
    affect the association statistics.
    I take this as a premise, but is that your personal experience? I
    will continue, treating it as a premise.
  2. Is this what you mean by regaining control? If so, control of
    what perception?
    I’m not clear what you mean here. Do you mean that you have an
    uncontrolled perception of an emotional state that is the same as
    you experience when you “go up a level” in an MoL session? If so, is
    that perception a perception of “happiness”?
  3. Conflicts between what and what perceptions you have been trying
    to control, and what higher-level perception can you now control in
    a way that avoids the conflict?
    Comment: From the viewpoint of a small part of the Universe (your
    husband) it may indeed matter.
···

[Eva de Hullu 2019-03-20_14:47:29 UTC]

        So the question is: how can we explain from a PCT

perspective why people experience this sense of happiness
when they find themselves in natural scenery?

        My  thought is that it's not the case that we have an

innate reference for the best scenery, but that the sense of
happiness comes from taking a step towards control. First,
as you find yourself looking at the vast landscape, you may
experience a loss of control.

        The world is so much larger than you could fathom. In the

mountains, at sea, in the sky: a single human being has no
meaning there. But then, in staying in this situation, you
could look at the universe and experience yourself as part
of this universe.

        You know what astronauts call the overview effect - when

they look at Earth disappearing into the distance, they
experience a sense of connectedness with the planet like
never before. From a PCT perspective, this sounds like going
up a level.

        You look at the universe, and look at yourself looking at

that universe.Â

        Once you go up a level, conflicts below that level can

disappear.

        From the perspective of the universe, what does it

matter what I’ll be wearing today?

Eva

        On Wed, Mar 20, 2019 at

12:38 PM Eetu Pikkarainen <csgnet@lists.illinois.edu >
wrote:

                [Eetu Pikkarainen

2019-03-20_11:03:29 UTC]

Â

                Thanks Martin

for interesting and important question and Warren
for great wealth of material to thought!

Â

                I have a simple

idea. Biosemiotician Kalevi Kull has written that it
is the ability to move which connects animals to the
location. Instead of that plants reside where they
happen to land. Thus we have a deep inherited
potential and need to control the quality of the
surroundings where we live. Evolutionary psychology
has shown that we generally prefer certain kind of
scenery which for example reminds for the savanna
environments of our forefathers id Africa. Still we
seldom have a possibility to remain in the best
possible scenery but our other controlled
perceptions and stabilized environments require
otherwise. So there seems to be a low level internal
conflict existing in our hierarchies all the time
when make our living in cities. It could be quite
similar as the low level inflammation in our bodies
caused by unhealthy food and ways of living. When we
get sometimes to a beautiful environment we first
simply enjoy it because we are all the time
controlling (low level) for it and secondly the
stress state caused by the low level conflict
resolves for a while.

Â

Â

Eetu

Â

From:
Warren Mansell <csgnet@lists.illinois.edu >
Sent: Wednesday, March 20, 2019 8:26 AM
To: mmt-csg@mmtaylor.net ;
mmt@mmtaylor.net
Cc: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: Happiness and scenery

Â

                Hi

Martin, this finding is well known, there are books
about it - The Nature Fix is excellent - and we have
a network too
www.NatureMind.net.

Â

                In

terms of PCT, I’ve had many thoughts that are coming
together…here are my notes and ramblings, open
source!

Â

 NatureMind domains

Â

                    Nature provides a

wider and deeper ‘palette’ of layered
perceptions that typically outcompete artificial
environments in the following ways:

Â

                    The need it serves

is exploration, connection & creation which
is the intrinsic need of an infant during
attachment experiences. It is thus that drives
our social evolution. Without nurture it becomes
need for power and control over othersÂ

Â

                    Can’t explain

without

                    - intrinsic

reference points

  • child development
  • modes of mind

Â

                    Otherwise theories

for child and adult different

Â

Â

                    Basic behaviours at

root are search, find, investigate, utilise,
recombine…(woods versus toy shop) -
exploited.Â

Â

                    That’s why

successful people have these profound nature
experiences.Â

Â

                    That’s why ‘mystery’

images are more interestingÂ

Â

                    Predict that play is

less ‘imaginary’ within nature as not necessaryÂ

Â

                    Feedback functions

constrain perception and therefore constrain
control. Nature provides a wide feedback
function for perceptual control at multiple
multiple levels a mapping into more, important
CVsÂ

                    For each one, why is

nature better?

Â

                      BREADTH - Control

of attention & observation across natural
landscapesÂ

Â

                      MALLEABILITY-

Control of objects - intensity, shape,
relationships, meaning - sticks stones and mud
kitchens Â

Â

                      SIMPLE AGENTS Â -

Perception of other agents; care; compassion
with animalsÂ

Â

                      Maintaining self

world concept identity confidenceÂ

Â

                      Development of

Narrative of one’s life and family and
communityÂ

Â

                      Perception of

World existential awe awe bigger than self
 spirituallyÂ

Â

                      Each level has a

complex emotion associated with its perception
(e.g. freedom, mastery, awe, connectedness)
and helps go to that experience when needed in
everyday life when experiencing a life
challenge through remembering and
metaphorically utilising that nature memoryÂ

Â

                      Safe risks and

managing conflict

Â

Scientific methodÂ

Â

Other theories:

                      Attentional

resource theory - less distractions from
deeper thought?

                      Engages the best

bits of default network - better understood as
reorganisationÂ

                      Emotional

attunement to natural beautyÂ

                      Emotion regulation

miles ruchardson

                      Biophilia - rework

as preferred unconscious perceptions - if your
life goals and sense of control depend on it
you can overcome genetic fear of snakes so
conversely can ‘overcome’ genetic need for
nature NB anorexiaÂ

                      Roger ulrich

Miyazaki - Parasympathetic- [me = reflective]

                      Immune system -

Qing Li - tree smellsÂ

                      Escape from

arbitrary consumerismÂ

Â

                      “Inhibition uses

up cognitive fuel�

                      P45 “I feel I have

time and I feel I have space�

                      Many possessions

in contemporary life

Bottom up

                      Nasal Smells

activate approach behaviourÂ

                      Noise pollution

Lancet 2005

                    Heart rate

variability measurementsÂ

                    Music affinity and

birdsong

Â

                    Fractal imagery -

Richard Taylor

                    Alpha brain waves -

wakefully relaxed (? Passive observation?); same
as music; parahippocampus. But why? Could it be
the same as functional branching of control
hierarchies in the brain?!

Eye tracking

                    Search trajectories

are fractal!

‘Resonance’Â

                    Need to add

biotensegrity

                    Resolve conflict by

passively observing own imagination mode?

Â

Â

Â

Â

                On 20 Mar 2019, at 03:44, Martin Taylor (mmt-csg@mmtaylor.net
                via csgnet Mailing List) <csgnet@lists.illinois.edu                    >

wrote:

[Martin Taylor 2019.03.19. 23.34]

                  For those interested in a PCT approach to emotion

I offer a phenomenon from yesterday’s Scientific
Reports weekly digest in the “Earth and
Environmental Sciences” section. The full text is
at

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-019-40854-6?WT.ec_id=SREP-20190318&sap-outbound-id=B6896327AF0EDF9BDB9458D9505F5700B4B9C719 .
Does anyone have a good supportable PCT
explanation for this phenomenon? Here’s the
abstract…
----------
Happiness is Greater in More Scenic Locations

·        Â
Chanuki
Illushka Seresinhe
,

·        Â
Tobias
Preis
,

·        Â
George
MacKerron
&

·        Â
Helen
Susannah Moat
Â

Scientific Reports**, volume****Â 9** ,
Article number: 4498 (2019)

                    Does spending time in

beautiful settings boost people’s happiness? The
answer to this question has long remained
elusive due to a paucity of large-scale data on
environmental aesthetics and individual
happiness. Here, we draw on two novel datasets:
first, individual happiness data from the
smartphone app,
Mappiness , and second, crowdsourced
ratings of the “scenicness� of photographs taken
across England from the online game
Scenic-Or-Not . We find that individuals
are happier in more scenic locations, even when
we account for a range of factors such as the
activity the individual was engaged in at the
time, weather conditions and the income of local
inhabitants. Crucially, this relationship holds
not only in natural environments, but in
built-up areas too, even after controlling for
the presence of green space. Our results provide
evidence that the aesthetics of the environments
that policymakers choose to build or demolish
may have consequences for our everyday
wellbeing.


Martin

Â

[Eva de Hullu 2019-03-26_15:46:48 UTC]

Martin,
I’m a bit conflicted about stepping into a ‘trap’ set up to get conversations going on this mailinglist involving people lurking in the dark. I’d rather just join discussions on topics that interest me or others without being wary of other motives. But anyway, let’s see where this goes.Â

[Martin Taylor 2019.03.25.11.23]

[Eva de Hullu 2019-03-20_14:47:29 UTC]

        So the question is: how can we explain from a PCT

perspective why people experience this sense of happiness
when they find themselves in natural scenery?

Nobody has followed up your suggestions, so to keep the ball rolling

a little, let me ask a couple of questions, preceded by a comment.
The comment is that the article makes a point of saying that it is
not “natural scenery” but the aesthetic quality of the local
scenery, whether rural or urban, that seems most to be associated
with happiness, but this association is in a population-based study,
not within individuals. So my first question is…

1. Do you personally feel happier when viewing beautiful things and

scenes than when viewing ugly ones, all else being equal, so far as
you are aware?

Ah, I probably misinterpreted the article, reading quickly. My points were about the quality of the scenery bing not purely natural, but overwhelming anyway.Â

To answer your question: yes - and no. It depends on the context, and my interpretation of the context. This is another sign that beauty is not a part of the stimulus, but in the eye of the beholder. For example, if I’m in a very beautiful palace, I could be unhappy if I knew this palace was build with money that was taken from the poor. Usually, natural scenery is less conflicted than the human-build structures. But all else being equal, I think I agree that in general, I feel happier in beautiful scenery than in ugly scenery (or the other way around: ugly scenery brings me in conflict (“this shouldn’t be here”) and thus makes me unhappy). Â

My other questions are about how you see the application of PCT,

assuming that the effect is real,at least for enough people to
affect the association statistics.

        My  thought is that it's not the case that we have an

innate reference for the best scenery, but that the sense of
happiness comes from taking a step towards control. First,
as you find yourself looking at the vast landscape, you may
experience a loss of control.

I take this as a premise, but is that your personal experience? I

will continue, treating it as a premise.

My premise is that happiness is associated with gaining control. My personal experience is that when I experience a gain of control, I feel happy. When someone understands what I’m saying (controlled variable = being understood), I feel happy.Â

        The world is so much larger than you could fathom. In the

mountains, at sea, in the sky: a single human being has no
meaning there. But then, in staying in this situation, you
could look at the universe and experience yourself as part
of this universe.

2. Is this what you mean by regaining control? If so, control of

what perception?

In this example, let’s say the controlled variable is the perception of safety. In a vast landscape, you can’t hide, and you lose control of the perception of safety.Â

Regaining control doesn’t have to happen of the same variable, right? I could gain control on a higher level than my personal safety, for example, the perception to be a part of the world. Â

Â

        You know what astronauts call the overview effect - when

they look at Earth disappearing into the distance, they
experience a sense of connectedness with the planet like
never before. From a PCT perspective, this sounds like going
up a level.

I'm not clear what you mean here. Do you mean that you have an

uncontrolled perception of an emotional state that is the same as
you experience when you “go up a level” in an MoL session? If so, is
that perception a perception of “happiness”?

Going up a level seems obvious in MOL but perhaps not from the more theoretical perspective. My awareness shifts to a higher level. So from the level with the perception of loss of control, I shift my awareness to myself being a part of the universe. I still think it’s rather difficult to understand how exactly this happens, if anyone has some clear idea, please join the discussion.

And Martin, I don’t understand your question here. What does an uncontrolled perception of an emotional state look like? It’s feeling in a way you don’t want to feel, right? I don’t see how that fits in.

Perhaps these questions lead to bigger questions, that deserve more attention on their own. What is the function of emotions and awareness in PCT, and how do they link to reorganization?Â

        You look at the universe, and look at yourself looking at

that universe.Â

        Once you go up a level, conflicts below that level can

disappear.

3. Conflicts between what and what perceptions you have been trying

to control, and what higher-level perception can you now control in
a way that avoids the conflict?

Let’s first take an easy example and then make it more complicated. I asked myself if, in order to experience an increase in control after a loss of control, this should be of the same perception (the same controlled variable). I think not.

Imagine I’m running through the forest, and then stumble over a treetrunk. While falling, I experience a loss of control (of the perception of staying upright, and continuing running). When I find myself flat on the ground, I notice a rare and interesting species of beetle just before me. This makes me happy (I obviously control for encountering insects, because they (again) mean to me that I’m part of a larger world; other people would probably react differently), and after looking at the beetle for a while, I’ll continue my run happily.Â
So looking at the current situation: the conflict first was between wanting to be safe, and finding myself in an unsafe place (with nowhere to hide). The increase in control was not on that level, but on another level (higher?), of another perception: feeling connected to the world.Â

Â

        From the perspective of the universe, what does it

matter what I’ll be wearing today?

Comment: From the viewpoint of a small part of the Universe (your

husband) it may indeed matter.

But still this would only matter to me if I controlled for my perception of my husband’s perception. From the perspective of the universe, even that would not matter.Â

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

I suppose I might add a general comment (sorry, Rick).



I think both "happiness" and "aesthetic quality" on a scale from

beautiful to ugly are not very well defined. Both are in the class
of “I know it when I see it” abstractions, along with pornography
and literary merit. Certainly different individuals may find the
same scene or object or event anywhere on the aesthetic quality
scale. This makes it very difficult to provide a consistent PCT
analysis of any precision. The statistical problem was addressed by
Bill P., and I think by Phil Runkel, a long time ago. It would be
quite possible for the within-individual regression to have a
negative slope while the across-individual regression has a positive
slope. For them both to have the same slope is more likely, but
because the opposite can be true, population associations should
usually be taken with a grain of salt when you are interested in
what happens in most individuals.

A a personal, within-individual, example, I watched Kirsten

Gillibrand’s self-introduction as a Presidential candidate outside
the Trump International Hotel. I found her oratory beautiful and I
felt happier while hearing it and for some time thereafter. It
probably didn’t hurt that I agreed with its content and the
direction of her appeal to moral qualities rather than money, so
that’s a confounding influence. But would someone who disagreed with
her content have found the Kennedy-esque cadences of her speech and
her appeal to moral principles over money to be beautiful? (I’m
obviously assuming that the effect mentioned in the article that
started this was not restricted to scenery).

In the other direction, I have heard quite a few of the new

Presidential Candidates, and have agreed with their content without
thinking that their oratory was beautiful. Those speeches have not
made me conscious of being happier for hearing them. For me, the
correlation apparently was between the beauty of the oratory and my
happiness feeling, not so much between the political content and my
happiness. Similarly in the target article, the population
association was between the beauty of the scenery rather than its
content, and “Happiness”.

Â

From a PCT perspective, beauty is a part of the individuals perception, right? Beauty is defined differently across cultures and across individuals, and it is thus much more likely to be a quality of the individual’s control hierarchy than a quality of the outside world (the stimulus or disturbance). In my view, some aspects of the speech you heard, must have increased your sense of control. For example, the appeal to morality gave you a sense that there is hope in American politics, that you didn’t have with the other speeches?Â

Eva

···

On Mon, Mar 25, 2019 at 5:09 PM Martin Taylor csgnet@lists.illinois.edu wrote:

Martin

Eva

        On Wed, Mar 20, 2019 at > > 12:38 PM Eetu Pikkarainen <csgnet@lists.illinois.edu            > > > wrote:
                [Eetu Pikkarainen

2019-03-20_11:03:29 UTC]

Â

                Thanks Martin

for interesting and important question and Warren
for great wealth of material to thought!

Â

                I have a simple

idea. Biosemiotician Kalevi Kull has written that it
is the ability to move which connects animals to the
location. Instead of that plants reside where they
happen to land. Thus we have a deep inherited
potential and need to control the quality of the
surroundings where we live. Evolutionary psychology
has shown that we generally prefer certain kind of
scenery which for example reminds for the savanna
environments of our forefathers id Africa. Still we
seldom have a possibility to remain in the best
possible scenery but our other controlled
perceptions and stabilized environments require
otherwise. So there seems to be a low level internal
conflict existing in our hierarchies all the time
when make our living in cities. It could be quite
similar as the low level inflammation in our bodies
caused by unhealthy food and ways of living. When we
get sometimes to a beautiful environment we first
simply enjoy it because we are all the time
controlling (low level) for it and secondly the
stress state caused by the low level conflict
resolves for a while.

Â

Â

Eetu

Â

From:
Warren Mansell <csgnet@lists.illinois.edu >
Sent: Wednesday, March 20, 2019 8:26 AM
To: mmt-csg@mmtaylor.net ;
mmt@mmtaylor.net
Cc: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: Happiness and scenery

Â

                Hi

Martin, this finding is well known, there are books
about it - The Nature Fix is excellent - and we have
a network too
www.NatureMind.net.

Â

                In

terms of PCT, I’ve had many thoughts that are coming
together…here are my notes and ramblings, open
source!

Â

 NatureMind domains

Â

                    Nature provides a

wider and deeper ‘palette’ of layered
perceptions that typically outcompete artificial
environments in the following ways:

Â

                    The need it serves

is exploration, connection & creation which
is the intrinsic need of an infant during
attachment experiences. It is thus that drives
our social evolution. Without nurture it becomes
need for power and control over othersÂ

Â

                    Can’t explain

without

                    - intrinsic

reference points

  • child development
  • modes of mind

Â

                    Otherwise theories

for child and adult different

Â

Â

                    Basic behaviours at

root are search, find, investigate, utilise,
recombine…(woods versus toy shop) -
exploited.Â

Â

                    That’s why

successful people have these profound nature
experiences.Â

Â

                    That’s why ‘mystery’

images are more interestingÂ

Â

                    Predict that play is

less ‘imaginary’ within nature as not necessaryÂ

Â

                    Feedback functions

constrain perception and therefore constrain
control. Nature provides a wide feedback
function for perceptual control at multiple
multiple levels a mapping into more, important
CVsÂ

                    For each one, why is

nature better?

Â

                      BREADTH - Control

of attention & observation across natural
landscapesÂ

Â

                      MALLEABILITY-

Control of objects - intensity, shape,
relationships, meaning - sticks stones and mud
kitchens Â

Â

                      SIMPLE AGENTS Â -

Perception of other agents; care; compassion
with animalsÂ

Â

                      Maintaining self

world concept identity confidenceÂ

Â

                      Development of

Narrative of one’s life and family and
communityÂ

Â

                      Perception of

World existential awe awe bigger than self
 spirituallyÂ

Â

                      Each level has a

complex emotion associated with its perception
(e.g. freedom, mastery, awe, connectedness)
and helps go to that experience when needed in
everyday life when experiencing a life
challenge through remembering and
metaphorically utilising that nature memoryÂ

Â

                      Safe risks and

managing conflict

Â

Scientific methodÂ

Â

Other theories:

                      Attentional

resource theory - less distractions from
deeper thought?

                      Engages the best

bits of default network - better understood as
reorganisationÂ

                      Emotional

attunement to natural beautyÂ

                      Emotion regulation

miles ruchardson

                      Biophilia - rework

as preferred unconscious perceptions - if your
life goals and sense of control depend on it
you can overcome genetic fear of snakes so
conversely can ‘overcome’ genetic need for
nature NB anorexiaÂ

                      Roger ulrich

Miyazaki - Parasympathetic- [me = reflective]

                      Immune system -

Qing Li - tree smellsÂ

                      Escape from

arbitrary consumerismÂ

Â

                      “Inhibition uses

up cognitive fuel�

                      P45 “I feel I have

time and I feel I have space�

                      Many possessions

in contemporary life

Bottom up

                      Nasal Smells

activate approach behaviourÂ

                      Noise pollution

Lancet 2005

                    Heart rate

variability measurementsÂ

                    Music affinity and

birdsong

Â

                    Fractal imagery -

Richard Taylor

                    Alpha brain waves -

wakefully relaxed (? Passive observation?); same
as music; parahippocampus. But why? Could it be
the same as functional branching of control
hierarchies in the brain?!

Eye tracking

                    Search trajectories

are fractal!

‘Resonance’Â

                    Need to add

biotensegrity

                    Resolve conflict by

passively observing own imagination mode?

Â

Â

Â

Â

                On 20 Mar 2019, at 03:44, Martin Taylor (mmt-csg@mmtaylor.net > > >                     via csgnet Mailing List) <csgnet@lists.illinois.edu                    > > > > wrote:

[Martin Taylor 2019.03.19. 23.34]

                  For those interested in a PCT approach to emotion

I offer a phenomenon from yesterday’s Scientific
Reports weekly digest in the “Earth and
Environmental Sciences” section. The full text is
at

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-019-40854-6?WT.ec_id=SREP-20190318&sap-outbound-id=B6896327AF0EDF9BDB9458D9505F5700B4B9C719 .
Does anyone have a good supportable PCT
explanation for this phenomenon? Here’s the
abstract…
----------
Happiness is Greater in More Scenic Locations

·        Â
Chanuki
Illushka Seresinhe
,

·        Â
Tobias
Preis
,

·        Â
George
MacKerron
&

·        Â
Helen
Susannah Moat
Â

Scientific Reports**, volume****Â 9** ,
Article number: 4498 (2019)

                    Does spending time in

beautiful settings boost people’s happiness? The
answer to this question has long remained
elusive due to a paucity of large-scale data on
environmental aesthetics and individual
happiness. Here, we draw on two novel datasets:
first, individual happiness data from the
smartphone app,
Mappiness , and second, crowdsourced
ratings of the “scenicness� of photographs taken
across England from the online game
Scenic-Or-Not . We find that individuals
are happier in more scenic locations, even when
we account for a range of factors such as the
activity the individual was engaged in at the
time, weather conditions and the income of local
inhabitants. Crucially, this relationship holds
not only in natural environments, but in
built-up areas too, even after controlling for
the presence of green space. Our results provide
evidence that the aesthetics of the environments
that policymakers choose to build or demolish
may have consequences for our everyday
wellbeing.


Martin

Â

[Martin Taylor 2019.03.26.16.37]

[Eva de Hullu 2019-03-26_15:46:48 UTC]

Martin,

        I'm a bit conflicted about stepping into a 'trap' set up to

get conversations going on this mailinglist involving people
lurking in the dark. I’d rather just join discussions on
topics that interest me or others without being wary of
other motives. But anyway, let’s see where this goes.

I'm sorry you saw my message as a trap. I thought from your response

that it was a subject that interested you. I was controlling at
least two perceptions, one being to understand better what you
wanted to say and relate it to the way I (fail to) understand either
beauty or happiness, the other being to try to get CSGnet lurkers
who lurk because they haven’t been interested in the topics
discussed to say something on a new topic that might interest them.
Anyway, your response helped a lot with the first one, since I now
have a much better understanding of your earlier response – and I
think I have a bit more clarity about the original question, too.

[Martin Taylor 2019.03.25.11.23]

[Eva de Hullu 2019-03-20_14:47:29 UTC]

                  So the question is: how can we explain from a

PCT perspective why people experience this sense
of happiness when they find themselves in natural
scenery?

          Nobody has followed up your suggestions, so to keep the

ball rolling a little, let me ask a couple of questions,
preceded by a comment. The comment is that the article
makes a point of saying that it is not “natural scenery”
but the aesthetic quality of the local scenery, whether
rural or urban, that seems most to be associated with
happiness, but this association is in a population-based
study, not within individuals. So my first question is…

          1. Do you personally feel happier when viewing beautiful

things and scenes than when viewing ugly ones, all else
being equal, so far as you are aware?

        Ah, I probably misinterpreted the article, reading

quickly. My points were about the quality of the scenery
bing not purely natural, but overwhelming anyway.Â

        To answer your question: yes - and no. It depends on the

context, and my interpretation of the context. This is
another sign that beauty is not a part of the stimulus, but
in the eye of the beholder. For example, if I’m in a very
beautiful palace, I could be unhappy if I knew this palace
was build with money that was taken from the poor. Usually,
natural scenery is less conflicted than the human-build
structures. But all else being equal, I think I agree that
in general, I feel happier in beautiful scenery than in ugly
scenery (or the other way around: ugly scenery brings me in
conflict (“this shouldn’t be here”) and thus makes me
unhappy).Â

That' a point that I had never considered. When I introspect (which

reputable psychologists were allowed to do until about 100 years
ago), I believe that I also am affected by how and why a built
structure came to be.

          My other questions are about how you see the application

of PCT, assuming that the effect is real,at least for
enough people to affect the association statistics.

                  My  thought is that it's not the case that we

have an innate reference for the best scenery, but
that the sense of happiness comes from taking a
step towards control. First, as you find yourself
looking at the vast landscape, you may experience
a loss of control.

          I take this as a premise, but is that your personal

experience? I will continue, treating it as a premise.

        My premise is that happiness is associated with gaining

control. My personal experience is that when I experience a
gain of control, I feel happy. When someone understands what
I’m saying (controlled variable = being understood), I feel
happy.

So do I. If I may extrapolate, would you say that in general you

feel happier when your control of some perception is improving and
less happy when you feel you are losing control of something you
were able to control quite well?

                  The world is so much larger than you could

fathom. In the mountains, at sea, in the sky: a
single human being has no meaning there. But then,
in staying in this situation, you could look at
the universe and experience yourself as part of
this universe.

          2. Is this what you mean by regaining control? If so,

control of what perception?

        In this example, let's say the controlled variable is the

perception of safety. In a vast landscape, you can’t hide,
and you lose control of the perception of safety.Â

        Regaining control doesn't have to happen of the same

variable, right? I could gain control on a higher level than
my personal safety, for example, the perception to be a part
of the world.Â

Good points. Translating loosely, it's the total ability to control

that matters to you. You can let go of controlling some perception
if it allows you to control another, perhaps at a higher level, that
your could not do while controlling the one of which you let go.

Â

                  You know what astronauts call the overview

effect - when they look at Earth disappearing into
the distance, they experience a sense of
connectedness with the planet like never before.
From a PCT perspective, this sounds like going up
a level.

          I'm not clear what you mean here. Do you mean that you

have an uncontrolled perception of an emotional state that
is the same as you experience when you “go up a level” in
an MoL session? If so, is that perception a perception of
“happiness”?

        Going up a level seems obvious in MOL but perhaps not

from the more theoretical perspective. My awareness shifts
to a higher level. So from the level with the perception of
loss of control, I shift my awareness to myself being a part
of the universe. I still think it’s rather difficult to
understand how exactly this happens, if anyone has some
clear idea, please join the discussion.

        And Martin, I don't understand your question here. What

does an uncontrolled perception of an emotional state look
like? It’s feeling in a way you don’t want to feel, right? I
don’t see how that fits in.

No, it's not a feeling you don't want. It's a feeling that happens

without you directly controlling for that feeling to happen. It’s
feeling happy not because you decided “I want to feel happy” and
then did something that moved your happiness perception up a level,
because a side effect of controlling something else was that you
felt happy. Let’s take an example from my experience a year ago in
the Canadian Rockies. We were driving slowly along a country road,
and ahead of us on the other side of the road two or three cars were
parked. I slowed even more to see why, and saw a mother bear and
three tiny cubs hardly bigger than cats foraging beside the road on
our side. I felt happy just seeing them. That was an uncontrolled
perception of an emotional state.

        Perhaps these questions lead to bigger questions, that

deserve more attention on their own. What is the function of
emotions and awareness in PCT, and how do they link to
reorganization?

I do so agree!!
                  You look at the universe, and look at yourself

looking at that universe.Â

                  Once you go up a level, conflicts below that

level can disappear.

          3. Conflicts between what and what perceptions you have

been trying to control, and what higher-level perception
can you now control in a way that avoids the conflict?

        Let's first take an easy example and then make it more

complicated. I asked myself if, in order to experience an
increase in control after a loss of control, this should be
of the same perception (the same controlled variable). I
think not.

        Imagine I'm running through the forest, and then stumble

over a treetrunk. While falling, I experience a loss of
control (of the perception of staying upright, and
continuing running). When I find myself flat on the ground,
I notice a rare and interesting species of beetle just
before me. This makes me happy (I obviously control for
encountering insects, because they (again) mean to me that
I’m part of a larger world; other people would probably
react differently), and after looking at the beetle for a
while, I’ll continue my run happily.Â

        So looking at the current situation: the conflict first was

between wanting to be safe, and finding myself in an unsafe
place (with nowhere to hide). The increase in control was
not on that level, but on another level (higher?), of
another perception: feeling connected to the world.Â

Lovely example.

Â

                  From the perspective of the universe, what

does it matter what I’ll be wearing today?

          Comment: From the viewpoint of a small part of the

Universe (your husband) it may indeed matter.

        But still this would only matter to me if I controlled

for my perception of my husband’s perception. From the
perspective of the universe, even that would not matter.

True.
          -----------------------

          I suppose I might add a general comment (sorry, Rick).



          I think both "happiness" and "aesthetic quality" on a

scale from beautiful to ugly are not very well defined.
Both are in the class of “I know it when I see it”
abstractions, along with pornography and literary merit.
Certainly different individuals may find the same scene or
object or event anywhere on the aesthetic quality scale.
This makes it very difficult to provide a consistent PCT
analysis of any precision. The statistical problem was
addressed by Bill P., and I think by Phil Runkel, a long
time ago. It would be quite possible for the
within-individual regression to have a negative slope
while the across-individual regression has a positive
slope. For them both to have the same slope is more
likely, but because the opposite can be true, population
associations should usually be taken with a grain of salt
when you are interested in what happens in most
individuals.

          A a personal, within-individual, example, I watched

Kirsten Gillibrand’s self-introduction as a Presidential
candidate outside the Trump International Hotel. I found
her oratory beautiful and I felt happier while hearing it
and for some time thereafter. It probably didn’t hurt that
I agreed with its content and the direction of her appeal
to moral qualities rather than money, so that’s a
confounding influence. But would someone who disagreed
with her content have found the Kennedy-esque cadences of
her speech and her appeal to moral principles over money
to be beautiful? (I’m obviously assuming that the effect
mentioned in the article that started this was not
restricted to scenery).

          In the other direction, I have heard quite a few of the

new Presidential Candidates, and have agreed with their
content without thinking that their oratory was beautiful.
Those speeches have not made me conscious of being happier
for hearing them. For me, the correlation apparently was
between the beauty of the oratory and my happiness
feeling, not so much between the political content and my
happiness. Similarly in the target article, the population
association was between the beauty of the scenery rather
than its content, and “Happiness”.

Â

        From a PCT perspective, beauty is a part of the

individuals perception, right? Beauty is defined differently
across cultures and across individuals, and it is thus much
more likely to be a quality of the individual’s control
hierarchy than a quality of the outside world (the stimulus
or disturbance).

Yes, indeed. But we have a word or it. Is it possible to say what

that word means if, say, you had two paintings, one of which you
found beautiful while the other was ugly, and the person next to you
thought the reverse? Both of you would apparently have a common
concept of beauty and ugliness, but apply them to quite different
things. I suspect that this “beauty is in the eye of the beholder”
issue is one of the “noise” effects that limit the associations
found in the target article. This philosophical question is often
posed as “How can I know whether you perceive Red as I do”.

        In my view, some aspects of the speech you heard, must

have increased your sense of control. For example, the
appeal to morality gave you a sense that there is hope in
American politics, that you didn’t have with the other
speeches?

I think what say would apply to the content, but my first feeling of

both beauty and happiness came before it was too clear how the
speech was to be focussed, It was about the rhythms and cadences of
the “music” of the speech, which in my mind evoked John F. Kennedy.
I suppose the historical reference could easily have had the
opposite effect, since it would remind me of the loss of control or
lack of control we have when things change in politics unexpectedly.
Certainly what you describe did come, but it came later.

Thanks for such an illuminating reply to what you perceived as a

challenge.

Martin
···
        On Mon, Mar 25, 2019 at 5:09 > PM Martin Taylor <csgnet@lists.illinois.edu            > > wrote:

Eva

          Martin

Eva

                  On Wed, Mar 20, > > > 2019 at 12:38 PM Eetu Pikkarainen <csgnet@lists.illinois.edu                      > > > > wrote:
                          [Eetu Pikkarainen

2019-03-20_11:03:29 UTC]

Â

                          Thanks

Martin for interesting and important
question and Warren for great wealth of
material to thought!

Â

                          I have

a simple idea. Biosemiotician Kalevi Kull
has written that it is the ability to move
which connects animals to the location.
Instead of that plants reside where they
happen to land. Thus we have a deep
inherited potential and need to control
the quality of the surroundings where we
live. Evolutionary psychology has shown
that we generally prefer certain kind of
scenery which for example reminds for the
savanna environments of our forefathers id
Africa. Still we seldom have a possibility
to remain in the best possible scenery but
our other controlled perceptions and
stabilized environments require otherwise.
So there seems to be a low level internal
conflict existing in our hierarchies all
the time when make our living in cities.
It could be quite similar as the low level
inflammation in our bodies caused by
unhealthy food and ways of living. When we
get sometimes to a beautiful environment
we first simply enjoy it because we are
all the time controlling (low level) for
it and secondly the stress state caused by
the low level conflict resolves for a
while.

Â

Â

Eetu

Â

From:
Warren Mansell <csgnet@lists.illinois.edu >
Sent: Wednesday, March 20, 2019
8:26 AM
To: mmt-csg@mmtaylor.net ;
mmt@mmtaylor.net
Cc: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: Happiness and
scenery

Â

                          Hi Martin, this

finding is well known, there are books
about it - The Nature Fix is excellent -
and we have a network too www.NatureMind.net.

Â

                          In terms of

PCT, I’ve had many thoughts that are
coming together…here are my notes and
ramblings, open source!

Â

                            Â NatureMind

domains

Â

                              Nature

provides a wider and deeper ‘palette’
of layered perceptions that typically
outcompete artificial environments in
the following ways:

Â

                              The need

it serves is exploration, connection
& creation which is the intrinsic
need of an infant during attachment
experiences. It is thus that drives
our social evolution. Without nurture
it becomes need for power and control
over othersÂ

Â

                              Can’t

explain without

                              -

intrinsic reference points

                              - child

development

                              - modes of

mind

Â

                              Otherwise

theories for child and adult different

Â

Â

                              Basic

behaviours at root are search, find,
investigate, utilise,
recombine…(woods versus toy shop) -
exploited.Â

Â

                              That’s why

successful people have these profound
nature experiences.Â

Â

                              That’s why

‘mystery’ images are more interestingÂ

Â

                              Predict

that play is less ‘imaginary’ within
nature as not necessaryÂ

Â

                              Feedback

functions constrain perception and
therefore constrain control. Nature
provides a wide feedback function for
perceptual control at multiple
multiple levels a mapping into more,
important CVsÂ

                              For each

one, why is nature better?

Â

                                BREADTH
  • Control of attention &
    observation across natural
    landscapesÂ

Â

                                MALLEABILITY-

Control of objects - intensity,
shape, relationships, meaning -
sticks stones and mud kitchens Â

Â

                                SIMPLE

AGENTS Â - Perception of other
agents; care; compassion with
animalsÂ

Â

                                Maintaining

self world concept identity
confidenceÂ

Â

                                Development

of Narrative of one’s life and
family and communityÂ

Â

                                Perception

of World existential awe awe bigger
than self  spirituallyÂ

Â

                                Each

level has a complex emotion
associated with its perception (e.g.
freedom, mastery, awe,
connectedness) and helps go to that
experience when needed in everyday
life when experiencing a life
challenge through remembering and
metaphorically utilising that nature
memoryÂ

Â

                                Safe

risks and managing conflict

Â

                                Scientific

methodÂ

Â

                                Other

theories:

                                Attentional

resource theory - less distractions
from deeper thought?

                                Engages

the best bits of default network -
better understood as reorganisationÂ

                                Emotional

attunement to natural beautyÂ

                                Emotion

regulation miles ruchardson

                                Biophilia
  • rework as preferred unconscious
    perceptions - if your life goals and
    sense of control depend on it you
    can overcome genetic fear of snakes
    so conversely can ‘overcome’ genetic
    need for nature NB anorexiaÂ
                                Roger

ulrich Miyazaki - Parasympathetic-
[me = reflective]

                                Immune

system - Qing Li - tree smellsÂ

                                Escape

from arbitrary consumerismÂ

Â

                                “Inhibition

uses up cognitive fuel�

                                P45 “I

feel I have time and I feel I have
space�

                                Many

possessions in contemporary life

                                Bottom

up

                                Nasal

Smells activate approach behaviourÂ

                                Noise

pollution Lancet 2005

                              Heart rate

variability measurementsÂ

                              Music

affinity and birdsong

Â

                              Fractal

imagery - Richard Taylor

                              Alpha

brain waves - wakefully relaxed (?
Passive observation?); same as music;
parahippocampus. But why? Could it be
the same as functional branching of
control hierarchies in the brain?!

                              Eye

tracking

                              Search

trajectories are fractal!

‘Resonance’Â

                              Need to

add biotensegrity

                              Resolve

conflict by passively observing own
imagination mode?

Â

Â

Â

Â

                          On 20 Mar 2019, at 03:44, Martin Taylor (mmt-csg@mmtaylor.net > > > >                               via csgnet Mailing List) <csgnet@lists.illinois.edu                              > > > > > wrote:

[Martin Taylor 2019.03.19. 23.34]

                            For those interested in a PCT approach

to emotion I offer a phenomenon from
yesterday’s Scientific Reports weekly
digest in the “Earth and Environmental
Sciences” section. The full text is at
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-019-40854-6?WT.ec_id=SREP-20190318&sap-outbound-id=B6896327AF0EDF9BDB9458D9505F5700B4B9C719 .
Does anyone have a good supportable PCT
explanation for this phenomenon? Here’s
the abstract…
----------
Happiness is Greater in More Scenic
Locations

·        Chanuki
Illushka Seresinhe
,

·        Tobias
Preis
,

·        George
MacKerron
&

·        Helen
Susannah Moat
Â

  •                                Scientific
    

Reports*** ,
volume****Â 9** ,
Article number: 4498 (2019)

                              Does

spending time in beautiful settings
boost people’s happiness? The answer
to this question has long remained
elusive due to a paucity of
large-scale data on environmental
aesthetics and individual happiness.
Here, we draw on two novel datasets:
first, individual happiness data from
the smartphone app, Mappiness ,
and second, crowdsourced ratings of
the “scenicness� of photographs taken
across England from the online game Scenic-Or-Not .
We find that individuals are happier
in more scenic locations, even when we
account for a range of factors such as
the activity the individual was
engaged in at the time, weather
conditions and the income of local
inhabitants. Crucially, this
relationship holds not only in natural
environments, but in built-up areas
too, even after controlling for the
presence of green space. Our results
provide evidence that the aesthetics
of the environments that policymakers
choose to build or demolish may have
consequences for our everyday
wellbeing.


Martin

Â

[Eva de Hullu 2019-03-27_12:56:41 UTC]

A few overall thoughts (that might stray a little from the original question):

I think there’s a difference between the experience of beauty as an abscence of conflict, and the sense of awe or overwhelming experience.

Beauty: experiencing no conflict

Could it be that beauty is related to the sense of calm (or happiness) you feel when there’s no conflict? This is different for everyone because our control systems are differently and are conflicted for different reasons. For some people, beauty is a clean, white living room. For others, it’s a messy rural living room. One controls (among others) the perception of cleanliness, the other the perception of aliveness.Â

I watched the speech of Gillibrand that Martin mentioned. What I think that strikes as beautiful, is the perception of someone who is in control. In control of the tone of her voice, her appearance, her message, the reactions of the public. I could compare this to watching any speaker at a conference: the ones most enjoyable are the ones in control of their message and presentation. I would also say that humans (as social animals) have ways to perceive conflict (or enduring error) in other humans, and so these perceptions could disturb our own controlled variables and lead to the experience of conflict.Â

Beauty: gaining control

The second sort of experience of happiness in a beautiful surrounding, the one that I described in natural experiences, goes further. It is the beauty that divides art from just pretty things: art always has a dark side, it must also hurt. For example, paintings by Anselm Kiefer are dark and gloomy. His themes concern war and guilt, and the paintings don’t contain much color. But when you see such a painting (they are enormous), you are are confronted with this pain, and through staying there, at that moment, fully aware, you experience beauty. It’s like an MOL experience.Â

We’re allowed to use introspection to generate hypotheses in the PCT framework, right? I enjoy a bit of introspection to test ideas in my own mind and generate and test hypotheses. It’s not said that these hypotheses shouldn’t be tested further, but if I can’t handle them in imagination, they won’t stand much chance elsewhere.Â

Eva

···

On Tue, Mar 26, 2019 at 10:12 PM Martin Taylor mmt-csg@mmtaylor.net wrote:

[Martin Taylor 2019.03.26.16.37]

[Eva de Hullu 2019-03-26_15:46:48 UTC]

Martin,

        I'm a bit conflicted about stepping into a 'trap' set up to

get conversations going on this mailinglist involving people
lurking in the dark. I’d rather just join discussions on
topics that interest me or others without being wary of
other motives. But anyway, let’s see where this goes.

I'm sorry you saw my message as a trap. I thought from your response

that it was a subject that interested you. I was controlling at
least two perceptions, one being to understand better what you
wanted to say and relate it to the way I (fail to) understand either
beauty or happiness, the other being to try to get CSGnet lurkers
who lurk because they haven’t been interested in the topics
discussed to say something on a new topic that might interest them.
Anyway, your response helped a lot with the first one, since I now
have a much better understanding of your earlier response – and I
think I have a bit more clarity about the original question, too.

        On Mon, Mar 25, 2019 at 5:09 > > PM Martin Taylor <csgnet@lists.illinois.edu            > > > wrote:

[Martin Taylor 2019.03.25.11.23]

[Eva de Hullu 2019-03-20_14:47:29 UTC]

                  So the question is: how can we explain from a

PCT perspective why people experience this sense
of happiness when they find themselves in natural
scenery?

          Nobody has followed up your suggestions, so to keep the

ball rolling a little, let me ask a couple of questions,
preceded by a comment. The comment is that the article
makes a point of saying that it is not “natural scenery”
but the aesthetic quality of the local scenery, whether
rural or urban, that seems most to be associated with
happiness, but this association is in a population-based
study, not within individuals. So my first question is…

          1. Do you personally feel happier when viewing beautiful

things and scenes than when viewing ugly ones, all else
being equal, so far as you are aware?

        Ah, I probably misinterpreted the article, reading

quickly. My points were about the quality of the scenery
bing not purely natural, but overwhelming anyway.Â

        To answer your question: yes - and no. It depends on the

context, and my interpretation of the context. This is
another sign that beauty is not a part of the stimulus, but
in the eye of the beholder. For example, if I’m in a very
beautiful palace, I could be unhappy if I knew this palace
was build with money that was taken from the poor. Usually,
natural scenery is less conflicted than the human-build
structures. But all else being equal, I think I agree that
in general, I feel happier in beautiful scenery than in ugly
scenery (or the other way around: ugly scenery brings me in
conflict (“this shouldn’t be here”) and thus makes me
unhappy).Â

That' a point that I had never considered. When I introspect (which

reputable psychologists were allowed to do until about 100 years
ago), I believe that I also am affected by how and why a built
structure came to be.

          My other questions are about how you see the application

of PCT, assuming that the effect is real,at least for
enough people to affect the association statistics.

                  My  thought is that it's not the case that we

have an innate reference for the best scenery, but
that the sense of happiness comes from taking a
step towards control. First, as you find yourself
looking at the vast landscape, you may experience
a loss of control.

          I take this as a premise, but is that your personal

experience? I will continue, treating it as a premise.

        My premise is that happiness is associated with gaining

control. My personal experience is that when I experience a
gain of control, I feel happy. When someone understands what
I’m saying (controlled variable = being understood), I feel
happy.

So do I. If I may extrapolate, would you say that in general you

feel happier when your control of some perception is improving and
less happy when you feel you are losing control of something you
were able to control quite well?

                  The world is so much larger than you could

fathom. In the mountains, at sea, in the sky: a
single human being has no meaning there. But then,
in staying in this situation, you could look at
the universe and experience yourself as part of
this universe.

          2. Is this what you mean by regaining control? If so,

control of what perception?

        In this example, let's say the controlled variable is the

perception of safety. In a vast landscape, you can’t hide,
and you lose control of the perception of safety.Â

        Regaining control doesn't have to happen of the same

variable, right? I could gain control on a higher level than
my personal safety, for example, the perception to be a part
of the world.Â

Good points. Translating loosely, it's the total ability to control

that matters to you. You can let go of controlling some perception
if it allows you to control another, perhaps at a higher level, that
your could not do while controlling the one of which you let go.

Â

                  You know what astronauts call the overview

effect - when they look at Earth disappearing into
the distance, they experience a sense of
connectedness with the planet like never before.
From a PCT perspective, this sounds like going up
a level.

          I'm not clear what you mean here. Do you mean that you

have an uncontrolled perception of an emotional state that
is the same as you experience when you “go up a level” in
an MoL session? If so, is that perception a perception of
“happiness”?

        Going up a level seems obvious in MOL but perhaps not

from the more theoretical perspective. My awareness shifts
to a higher level. So from the level with the perception of
loss of control, I shift my awareness to myself being a part
of the universe. I still think it’s rather difficult to
understand how exactly this happens, if anyone has some
clear idea, please join the discussion.

        And Martin, I don't understand your question here. What

does an uncontrolled perception of an emotional state look
like? It’s feeling in a way you don’t want to feel, right? I
don’t see how that fits in.

No, it's not a feeling you don't want. It's a feeling that happens

without you directly controlling for that feeling to happen. It’s
feeling happy not because you decided “I want to feel happy” and
then did something that moved your happiness perception up a level,
because a side effect of controlling something else was that you
felt happy. Let’s take an example from my experience a year ago in
the Canadian Rockies. We were driving slowly along a country road,
and ahead of us on the other side of the road two or three cars were
parked. I slowed even more to see why, and saw a mother bear and
three tiny cubs hardly bigger than cats foraging beside the road on
our side. I felt happy just seeing them. That was an uncontrolled
perception of an emotional state.

        Perhaps these questions lead to bigger questions, that

deserve more attention on their own. What is the function of
emotions and awareness in PCT, and how do they link to
reorganization?

I do so agree!!
                  You look at the universe, and look at yourself

looking at that universe.Â

                  Once you go up a level, conflicts below that

level can disappear.

          3. Conflicts between what and what perceptions you have

been trying to control, and what higher-level perception
can you now control in a way that avoids the conflict?

        Let's first take an easy example and then make it more

complicated. I asked myself if, in order to experience an
increase in control after a loss of control, this should be
of the same perception (the same controlled variable). I
think not.

        Imagine I'm running through the forest, and then stumble

over a treetrunk. While falling, I experience a loss of
control (of the perception of staying upright, and
continuing running). When I find myself flat on the ground,
I notice a rare and interesting species of beetle just
before me. This makes me happy (I obviously control for
encountering insects, because they (again) mean to me that
I’m part of a larger world; other people would probably
react differently), and after looking at the beetle for a
while, I’ll continue my run happily.Â

        So looking at the current situation: the conflict first was

between wanting to be safe, and finding myself in an unsafe
place (with nowhere to hide). The increase in control was
not on that level, but on another level (higher?), of
another perception: feeling connected to the world.Â

Lovely example.

Â

                  From the perspective of the universe, what

does it matter what I’ll be wearing today?

          Comment: From the viewpoint of a small part of the

Universe (your husband) it may indeed matter.

        But still this would only matter to me if I controlled

for my perception of my husband’s perception. From the
perspective of the universe, even that would not matter.

True.
          -----------------------

          I suppose I might add a general comment (sorry, Rick).



          I think both "happiness" and "aesthetic quality" on a

scale from beautiful to ugly are not very well defined.
Both are in the class of “I know it when I see it”
abstractions, along with pornography and literary merit.
Certainly different individuals may find the same scene or
object or event anywhere on the aesthetic quality scale.
This makes it very difficult to provide a consistent PCT
analysis of any precision. The statistical problem was
addressed by Bill P., and I think by Phil Runkel, a long
time ago. It would be quite possible for the
within-individual regression to have a negative slope
while the across-individual regression has a positive
slope. For them both to have the same slope is more
likely, but because the opposite can be true, population
associations should usually be taken with a grain of salt
when you are interested in what happens in most
individuals.

          A a personal, within-individual, example, I watched

Kirsten Gillibrand’s self-introduction as a Presidential
candidate outside the Trump International Hotel. I found
her oratory beautiful and I felt happier while hearing it
and for some time thereafter. It probably didn’t hurt that
I agreed with its content and the direction of her appeal
to moral qualities rather than money, so that’s a
confounding influence. But would someone who disagreed
with her content have found the Kennedy-esque cadences of
her speech and her appeal to moral principles over money
to be beautiful? (I’m obviously assuming that the effect
mentioned in the article that started this was not
restricted to scenery).

          In the other direction, I have heard quite a few of the

new Presidential Candidates, and have agreed with their
content without thinking that their oratory was beautiful.
Those speeches have not made me conscious of being happier
for hearing them. For me, the correlation apparently was
between the beauty of the oratory and my happiness
feeling, not so much between the political content and my
happiness. Similarly in the target article, the population
association was between the beauty of the scenery rather
than its content, and “Happiness”.

Â

        From a PCT perspective, beauty is a part of the

individuals perception, right? Beauty is defined differently
across cultures and across individuals, and it is thus much
more likely to be a quality of the individual’s control
hierarchy than a quality of the outside world (the stimulus
or disturbance).

Yes, indeed. But we have a word or it. Is it possible to say what

that word means if, say, you had two paintings, one of which you
found beautiful while the other was ugly, and the person next to you
thought the reverse? Both of you would apparently have a common
concept of beauty and ugliness, but apply them to quite different
things. I suspect that this “beauty is in the eye of the beholder”
issue is one of the “noise” effects that limit the associations
found in the target article. This philosophical question is often
posed as “How can I know whether you perceive Red as I do”.

        In my view, some aspects of the speech you heard, must

have increased your sense of control. For example, the
appeal to morality gave you a sense that there is hope in
American politics, that you didn’t have with the other
speeches?

I think what say would apply to the content, but my first feeling of

both beauty and happiness came before it was too clear how the
speech was to be focussed, It was about the rhythms and cadences of
the “music” of the speech, which in my mind evoked John F. Kennedy.
I suppose the historical reference could easily have had the
opposite effect, since it would remind me of the loss of control or
lack of control we have when things change in politics unexpectedly.
Certainly what you describe did come, but it came later.

Thanks for such an illuminating reply to what you perceived as a

challenge.

Martin

Eva

          Martin

Eva

                  On Wed, Mar 20, > > > > 2019 at 12:38 PM Eetu Pikkarainen <csgnet@lists.illinois.edu                      > > > > > wrote:
                          [Eetu Pikkarainen

2019-03-20_11:03:29 UTC]

Â

                          Thanks

Martin for interesting and important
question and Warren for great wealth of
material to thought!

Â

                          I have

a simple idea. Biosemiotician Kalevi Kull
has written that it is the ability to move
which connects animals to the location.
Instead of that plants reside where they
happen to land. Thus we have a deep
inherited potential and need to control
the quality of the surroundings where we
live. Evolutionary psychology has shown
that we generally prefer certain kind of
scenery which for example reminds for the
savanna environments of our forefathers id
Africa. Still we seldom have a possibility
to remain in the best possible scenery but
our other controlled perceptions and
stabilized environments require otherwise.
So there seems to be a low level internal
conflict existing in our hierarchies all
the time when make our living in cities.
It could be quite similar as the low level
inflammation in our bodies caused by
unhealthy food and ways of living. When we
get sometimes to a beautiful environment
we first simply enjoy it because we are
all the time controlling (low level) for
it and secondly the stress state caused by
the low level conflict resolves for a
while.

Â

Â

Eetu

Â

From:
Warren Mansell <csgnet@lists.illinois.edu >
Sent: Wednesday, March 20, 2019
8:26 AM
To: mmt-csg@mmtaylor.net ;
mmt@mmtaylor.net
Cc: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: Happiness and
scenery

Â

                          Hi Martin, this

finding is well known, there are books
about it - The Nature Fix is excellent -
and we have a network too www.NatureMind.net.

Â

                          In terms of

PCT, I’ve had many thoughts that are
coming together…here are my notes and
ramblings, open source!

Â

                            Â NatureMind

domains

Â

                              Nature

provides a wider and deeper ‘palette’
of layered perceptions that typically
outcompete artificial environments in
the following ways:

Â

                              The need

it serves is exploration, connection
& creation which is the intrinsic
need of an infant during attachment
experiences. It is thus that drives
our social evolution. Without nurture
it becomes need for power and control
over othersÂ

Â

                              Can’t

explain without

                              -

intrinsic reference points

                              - child

development

                              - modes of

mind

Â

                              Otherwise

theories for child and adult different

Â

Â

                              Basic

behaviours at root are search, find,
investigate, utilise,
recombine…(woods versus toy shop) -
exploited.Â

Â

                              That’s why

successful people have these profound
nature experiences.Â

Â

                              That’s why

‘mystery’ images are more interestingÂ

Â

                              Predict

that play is less ‘imaginary’ within
nature as not necessaryÂ

Â

                              Feedback

functions constrain perception and
therefore constrain control. Nature
provides a wide feedback function for
perceptual control at multiple
multiple levels a mapping into more,
important CVsÂ

                              For each

one, why is nature better?

Â

                                BREADTH
  • Control of attention &
    observation across natural
    landscapesÂ

Â

                                MALLEABILITY-

Control of objects - intensity,
shape, relationships, meaning -
sticks stones and mud kitchens Â

Â

                                SIMPLE

AGENTS Â - Perception of other
agents; care; compassion with
animalsÂ

Â

                                Maintaining

self world concept identity
confidenceÂ

Â

                                Development

of Narrative of one’s life and
family and communityÂ

Â

                                Perception

of World existential awe awe bigger
than self  spirituallyÂ

Â

                                Each

level has a complex emotion
associated with its perception (e.g.
freedom, mastery, awe,
connectedness) and helps go to that
experience when needed in everyday
life when experiencing a life
challenge through remembering and
metaphorically utilising that nature
memoryÂ

Â

                                Safe

risks and managing conflict

Â

                                Scientific

methodÂ

Â

                                Other

theories:

                                Attentional

resource theory - less distractions
from deeper thought?

                                Engages

the best bits of default network -
better understood as reorganisationÂ

                                Emotional

attunement to natural beautyÂ

                                Emotion

regulation miles ruchardson

                                Biophilia
  • rework as preferred unconscious
    perceptions - if your life goals and
    sense of control depend on it you
    can overcome genetic fear of snakes
    so conversely can ‘overcome’ genetic
    need for nature NB anorexiaÂ
                                Roger

ulrich Miyazaki - Parasympathetic-
[me = reflective]

                                Immune

system - Qing Li - tree smellsÂ

                                Escape

from arbitrary consumerismÂ

Â

                                “Inhibition

uses up cognitive fuel�

                                P45 “I

feel I have time and I feel I have
space�

                                Many

possessions in contemporary life

                                Bottom

up

                                Nasal

Smells activate approach behaviourÂ

                                Noise

pollution Lancet 2005

                              Heart rate

variability measurementsÂ

                              Music

affinity and birdsong

Â

                              Fractal

imagery - Richard Taylor

                              Alpha

brain waves - wakefully relaxed (?
Passive observation?); same as music;
parahippocampus. But why? Could it be
the same as functional branching of
control hierarchies in the brain?!

                              Eye

tracking

                              Search

trajectories are fractal!

‘Resonance’Â

                              Need to

add biotensegrity

                              Resolve

conflict by passively observing own
imagination mode?

Â

Â

Â

Â

                          On 20 Mar 2019, at 03:44, Martin Taylor (mmt-csg@mmtaylor.net > > > > >                               via csgnet Mailing List) <csgnet@lists.illinois.edu                              > > > > > > wrote:

[Martin Taylor 2019.03.19. 23.34]

                            For those interested in a PCT approach

to emotion I offer a phenomenon from
yesterday’s Scientific Reports weekly
digest in the “Earth and Environmental
Sciences” section. The full text is at
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-019-40854-6?WT.ec_id=SREP-20190318&sap-outbound-id=B6896327AF0EDF9BDB9458D9505F5700B4B9C719 .
Does anyone have a good supportable PCT
explanation for this phenomenon? Here’s
the abstract…
----------
Happiness is Greater in More Scenic
Locations

·        Chanuki
Illushka Seresinhe
,

·        Tobias
Preis
,

·        George
MacKerron
&

·        Helen
Susannah Moat
Â

  •                                Scientific
    

Reports*** ,
volume****Â 9** ,
Article number: 4498 (2019)

                              Does

spending time in beautiful settings
boost people’s happiness? The answer
to this question has long remained
elusive due to a paucity of
large-scale data on environmental
aesthetics and individual happiness.
Here, we draw on two novel datasets:
first, individual happiness data from
the smartphone app, Mappiness ,
and second, crowdsourced ratings of
the “scenicness� of photographs taken
across England from the online game Scenic-Or-Not .
We find that individuals are happier
in more scenic locations, even when we
account for a range of factors such as
the activity the individual was
engaged in at the time, weather
conditions and the income of local
inhabitants. Crucially, this
relationship holds not only in natural
environments, but in built-up areas
too, even after controlling for the
presence of green space. Our results
provide evidence that the aesthetics
of the environments that policymakers
choose to build or demolish may have
consequences for our everyday
wellbeing.


Martin

Â

[Martin Taylor 2019.03.27.11.00]

[Eva de Hullu 2019-03-27_12:56:41 UTC]

Eva, this is fantastic, at least as I understand what you say. For

me, you are showing PCT from a viewpoint different from the one I am
accustomed to using. What you say doesn’t alter PCT for me. Rather
it allows me a coloured stereo view where before I had a flat grey
photo-like view of the same thing. The sequence of your messages in
this thread have been like bringing the view through “the second
lens” slowly into focus, so that the third dimension suddenly
springs out. That doesn’t mean that the two views yet exactly fit
together, but I think that is likely to happen, slowly.

Last things first...
    We're allowed to use introspection to generate hypotheses in

the PCT framework, right? I enjoy a bit of introspection to test
ideas in my own mind and generate and test hypotheses. It’s not
said that these hypotheses shouldn’t be tested further, but if I
can’t handle them in imagination, they won’t stand much chance
elsewhere.

So far as I understand it, that was Bill Powers's method, at least

in the invention of the levels of the control hierarchy, and I
suspect elsewhere. I think all truly inventive people must use
introspection of some form. Following Powers, we might call it an
instance of “control in imagination”. At some point, though, the
results of introspection have to be tested, whether than happens
within seconds or within millennia.

In my interpolations below, I find that some of my comments on

earlier passages preview comments you make a bit later. This
encourages me to think I am following your thought in the main,
though perhaps there are a couple of spots where we may not be
seeing the same thing.

        A few overall thoughts (that might stray a little from

the original question):

        I think there's a difference between the experience of

beauty as an abscence of conflict, and the sense of awe or
overwhelming experience.

I don't know if you like classical music, but I will use it as an

example. For me, some of Mozart’s music is pretty, but not
beautiful. The pretty music just goes where one expects, perfect as
background for the aristocratic dinner parties for which it was
composed. No surprises, no diversion from ongoing conversation. Some
of Mozart’s concert music (most of the later works) are beautiful,
perhaps because they do go places you would not expect. Even of
those, only perhaps two or three of his over 600 K-numbered works
are awe-inspiring (beyond being awed by his technical mastery). Much
of Beethoven’s late music, however, does give me a “sense of awe or
overwhelming experience”.

Beauty: experiencing no conflict

        Could it be that beauty is related to the sense of calm

(or happiness) you feel when there’s no conflict?

Is surprise associated with conflict? Is calm associated with

happiness? Taking my “first lens” component of the stereo view of
PCT, I introspect that calm is associated with the emotional feeling
of contentment, not happiness. It’s also a state in which fewer than
normal of our controlled perceptions are outside their reference
bounds. Above, I proposed that beauty requires surprise, but I would
not say surprise is related to conflict.

On the other hand, surprise might be related to a perceptual

equivalent of conflict, in that the outputs of level N-1 perceptual
functions bring two (or more) incompatible level N perceptions both
to exist at once, as if, for example, you saw the same surface as
intensely red and intensely blue at the same time. You do see such
colour discrepancies in the iridescence of a butterfly wing, for
example, and I, for one, find those iridescent surfaces to be
beautiful. Mona Lisa is said to be beautiful because of the
evanescent nature of her smile, which is there and is not there.

        This is different for everyone because our control

systems are differently and are conflicted for different
reasons. For some people, beauty is a clean, white living
room. For others, it’s a messy rural living room. One
controls (among others) the perception of cleanliness, the
other the perception of aliveness.Â

        I watched the speech of Gillibrand that Martin mentioned.

What I think that strikes as beautiful, is the perception of
someone who is in control. In control of the tone of her
voice, her appearance, her message, the reactions of the
public.

She certainly was very much in control, but so, I think, have been

many others, Trump included when he is at one of his rallies of the
faithful. Most politicians do seem to be in control when they speak,
but few speak beautifully. I can think of John Kennedy and Barack
Obama among US politicians over my lifetime of interest in politics,
and for them only on a few special occasions. My impression for many
professional orators has been that their control was that of a
puppet, artificial, whereas I thought Gillibrand’s felt artless and
natural, just as Mozart’s technical skill allowed his music to seem
natural and artless – and beautiful rather than pretty. Some have
called this “the art that conceals art”.

        I could compare this to watching any speaker at a

conference: the ones most enjoyable are the ones in control
of their message and presentation. I would also say that
humans (as social animals) have ways to perceive conflict
(or enduring error) in other humans, and so these
perceptions could disturb our own controlled variables and
lead to the experience of conflict.

Yes.

Beauty: gaining control

        The second sort of experience of happiness in a beautiful

surrounding, the one that I described in natural
experiences, goes further. It is the beauty that divides art
from just pretty things: art always has a dark side, it must
also hurt.

Why "hurt"?
        For example, paintings by Anselm Kiefer are dark and

gloomy. His themes concern war and guilt, and the paintings
don’t contain much color. But when you see such a painting
(they are enormous), you are are confronted with this pain,
and through staying there, at that moment, fully aware, you
experience beauty. It’s like an MOL experience.

That's an "aha" moment for me, about MoL. It's the "Mona Lisa"

moment I mentioned above. It would not require hurt, but the ability
to see multiple possibilities without having to decide among them?
That’s where you see beauty?

        We're allowed to use introspection to generate hypotheses

in the PCT framework, right? I enjoy a bit of introspection
to test ideas in my own mind and generate and test
hypotheses. It’s not said that these hypotheses shouldn’t be
tested further, but if I can’t handle them in imagination,
they won’t stand much chance elsewhere.

Please let's hear more of your introspections! They seem to be

evoking new directions of thinking that show promise of leading to
useful places, in the way placer gold in a stream suggests the
existence of a lode worth seeking somewhere in “them thar hills”.

Martin
···

Eva

      On Tue, Mar 26, 2019 at 10:12 > PM Martin Taylor <mmt-csg@mmtaylor.net> wrote:

[Martin Taylor 2019.03.26.16.37]

[Eva de Hullu 2019-03-26_15:46:48 UTC]

Martin,

                I'm a bit conflicted about stepping into a 'trap'

set up to get conversations going on this
mailinglist involving people lurking in the dark.
I’d rather just join discussions on topics that
interest me or others without being wary of other
motives. But anyway, let’s see where this goes.

        I'm sorry you saw my message as a trap. I thought from your

response that it was a subject that interested you. I was
controlling at least two perceptions, one being to
understand better what you wanted to say and relate it to
the way I (fail to) understand either beauty or happiness,
the other being to try to get CSGnet lurkers who lurk
because they haven’t been interested in the topics discussed
to say something on a new topic that might interest them.
Anyway, your response helped a lot with the first one, since
I now have a much better understanding of your earlier
response – and I think I have a bit more clarity about the
original question, too.

                On Mon, Mar 25, 2019 > > > at 5:09 PM Martin Taylor <csgnet@lists.illinois.edu                    > > > > wrote:
                  [Martin Taylor

2019.03.25.11.23]

                        [Eva de Hullu

2019-03-20_14:47:29 UTC]

                          So the question is: how can we explain

from a PCT perspective why people
experience this sense of happiness when
they find themselves in natural scenery?

                  Nobody has followed up your suggestions, so to

keep the ball rolling a little, let me ask a
couple of questions, preceded by a comment. The
comment is that the article makes a point of
saying that it is not “natural scenery” but the
aesthetic quality of the local scenery, whether
rural or urban, that seems most to be associated
with happiness, but this association is in a
population-based study, not within individuals. So
my first question is…

                  1. Do you personally feel happier when viewing

beautiful things and scenes than when viewing ugly
ones, all else being equal, so far as you are
aware?

                Ah, I probably misinterpreted the article,

reading quickly. My points were about the quality of
the scenery bing not purely natural, but
overwhelming anyway.Â

                To answer your question: yes - and no. It depends

on the context, and my interpretation of the
context. This is another sign that beauty is not a
part of the stimulus, but in the eye of the
beholder. For example, if I’m in a very beautiful
palace, I could be unhappy if I knew this palace was
build with money that was taken from the poor.
Usually, natural scenery is less conflicted than the
human-build structures. But all else being equal, I
think I agree that in general, I feel happier in
beautiful scenery than in ugly scenery (or the other
way around: ugly scenery brings me in conflict
(“this shouldn’t be here”) and thus makes me
unhappy).Â

        That' a point that I had never considered. When I introspect

(which reputable psychologists were allowed to do until
about 100 years ago), I believe that I also am affected by
how and why a built structure came to be.

                  My other questions are about how you see the

application of PCT, assuming that the effect is
real,at least for enough people to affect the
association statistics.

                          My  thought is that it's not the case

that we have an innate reference for the
best scenery, but that the sense of
happiness comes from taking a step towards
control. First, as you find yourself
looking at the vast landscape, you may
experience a loss of control.

                  I take this as a premise, but is that your

personal experience? I will continue, treating it
as a premise.

                My premise is that happiness is associated with

gaining control. My personal experience is that when
I experience a gain of control, I feel happy. When
someone understands what I’m saying (controlled
variable = being understood), I feel happy.

        So do I. If I may extrapolate, would you say that in general

you feel happier when your control of some perception is
improving and less happy when you feel you are losing
control of something you were able to control quite well?

                          The world is so much larger than you

could fathom. In the mountains, at sea, in
the sky: a single human being has no
meaning there. But then, in staying in
this situation, you could look at the
universe and experience yourself as part
of this universe.

                  2. Is this what you mean by regaining control? If

so, control of what perception?

                In this example, let's say the controlled

variable is the perception of safety. In a vast
landscape, you can’t hide, and you lose control of
the perception of safety.Â

                Regaining control doesn't have to happen of the

same variable, right? I could gain control on a
higher level than my personal safety, for example,
the perception to be a part of the world.Â

        Good points. Translating loosely, it's the total ability to

control that matters to you. You can let go of controlling
some perception if it allows you to control another, perhaps
at a higher level, that your could not do while controlling
the one of which you let go.

Â

                          You know what astronauts call the

overview effect - when they look at Earth
disappearing into the distance, they
experience a sense of connectedness with
the planet like never before. From a PCT
perspective, this sounds like going up a
level.

                  I'm not clear what you mean here. Do you mean that

you have an uncontrolled perception of an
emotional state that is the same as you experience
when you “go up a level” in an MoL session? If so,
is that perception a perception of “happiness”?

                Going up a level seems obvious in MOL but perhaps

not from the more theoretical perspective. My
awareness shifts to a higher level. So from the
level with the perception of loss of control, I
shift my awareness to myself being a part of the
universe. I still think it’s rather difficult to
understand how exactly this happens, if anyone has
some clear idea, please join the discussion.

                And Martin, I don't understand your question

here. What does an uncontrolled perception of an
emotional state look like? It’s feeling in a way you
don’t want to feel, right? I don’t see how that fits
in.

        No, it's not a feeling you don't want. It's a feeling that

happens without you directly controlling for that feeling to
happen. It’s feeling happy not because you decided “I want
to feel happy” and then did something that moved your
happiness perception up a level, because a side effect of
controlling something else was that you felt happy. Let’s
take an example from my experience a year ago in the
Canadian Rockies. We were driving slowly along a country
road, and ahead of us on the other side of the road two or
three cars were parked. I slowed even more to see why, and
saw a mother bear and three tiny cubs hardly bigger than
cats foraging beside the road on our side. I felt happy just
seeing them. That was an uncontrolled perception of an
emotional state.

                Perhaps these questions lead to bigger questions,

that deserve more attention on their own. What is
the function of emotions and awareness in PCT, and
how do they link to reorganization?

        I do so agree!!
                          You look at the universe, and look at

yourself looking at that universe.Â

                          Once you go up a level, conflicts below

that level can disappear.

                  3. Conflicts between what and what perceptions you

have been trying to control, and what higher-level
perception can you now control in a way that
avoids the conflict?

                Let's first take an easy example and then make it

more complicated. I asked myself if, in order to
experience an increase in control after a loss of
control, this should be of the same perception (the
same controlled variable). I think not.

                Imagine I'm running through the forest, and then

stumble over a treetrunk. While falling, I
experience a loss of control (of the perception of
staying upright, and continuing running). When I
find myself flat on the ground, I notice a rare and
interesting species of beetle just before me. This
makes me happy (I obviously control for encountering
insects, because they (again) mean to me that I’m
part of a larger world; other people would probably
react differently), and after looking at the beetle
for a while, I’ll continue my run happily.Â

                So looking at the current situation: the conflict

first was between wanting to be safe, and finding
myself in an unsafe place (with nowhere to hide).
The increase in control was not on that level, but
on another level (higher?), of another perception:
feeling connected to the world.Â

Lovely example.

Â

                          From the perspective of the universe,

what does it matter what I’ll be wearing
today?

                  Comment: From the viewpoint of a small part of the

Universe (your husband) it may indeed matter.

                But still this would only matter to me if I

controlled for my perception of my husband’s
perception. From the perspective of the universe,
even that would not matter.

        True.
                  -----------------------

                  I suppose I might add a general comment (sorry,

Rick).

                  I think both "happiness" and "aesthetic quality"

on a scale from beautiful to ugly are not very
well defined. Both are in the class of “I know it
when I see it” abstractions, along with
pornography and literary merit. Certainly
different individuals may find the same scene or
object or event anywhere on the aesthetic quality
scale. This makes it very difficult to provide a
consistent PCT analysis of any precision. The
statistical problem was addressed by Bill P., and
I think by Phil Runkel, a long time ago. It would
be quite possible for the within-individual
regression to have a negative slope while the
across-individual regression has a positive slope.
For them both to have the same slope is more
likely, but because the opposite can be true,
population associations should usually be taken
with a grain of salt when you are interested in
what happens in most individuals.

                  A a personal, within-individual, example, I

watched Kirsten Gillibrand’s self-introduction as
a Presidential candidate outside the Trump
International Hotel. I found her oratory beautiful
and I felt happier while hearing it and for some
time thereafter. It probably didn’t hurt that I
agreed with its content and the direction of her
appeal to moral qualities rather than money, so
that’s a confounding influence. But would someone
who disagreed with her content have found the
Kennedy-esque cadences of her speech and her
appeal to moral principles over money to be
beautiful? (I’m obviously assuming that the effect
mentioned in the article that started this was not
restricted to scenery).

                  In the other direction, I have heard quite a few

of the new Presidential Candidates, and have
agreed with their content without thinking that
their oratory was beautiful. Those speeches have
not made me conscious of being happier for hearing
them. For me, the correlation apparently was
between the beauty of the oratory and my happiness
feeling, not so much between the political content
and my happiness. Similarly in the target article,
the population association was between the beauty
of the scenery rather than its content, and
“Happiness”.

Â

                From a PCT perspective, beauty is a part of the

individuals perception, right? Beauty is defined
differently across cultures and across individuals,
and it is thus much more likely to be a quality of
the individual’s control hierarchy than a quality of
the outside world (the stimulus or disturbance).

        Yes, indeed. But we have a word or it. Is it possible to say

what that word means if, say, you had two paintings, one of
which you found beautiful while the other was ugly, and the
person next to you thought the reverse? Both of you would
apparently have a common concept of beauty and ugliness, but
apply them to quite different things. I suspect that this
“beauty is in the eye of the beholder” issue is one of the
“noise” effects that limit the associations found in the
target article. This philosophical question is often posed
as “How can I know whether you perceive Red as I do”.

                In my view, some aspects of the speech you

heard, must have increased your sense of control.
For example, the appeal to morality gave you a sense
that there is hope in American politics, that you
didn’t have with the other speeches?

        I think what say would apply to the content, but my first

feeling of both beauty and happiness came before it was too
clear how the speech was to be focussed, It was about the
rhythms and cadences of the “music” of the speech, which in
my mind evoked John F. Kennedy. I suppose the historical
reference could easily have had the opposite effect, since
it would remind me of the loss of control or lack of control
we have when things change in politics unexpectedly.
Certainly what you describe did come, but it came later.

        Thanks for such an illuminating reply to what you perceived

as a challenge.

        Martin

Eva

                  Martin

Eva

                          On Wed, > > > > > Mar 20, 2019 at 12:38 PM Eetu Pikkarainen > > > > > <csgnet@lists.illinois.edu                              > > > > > > wrote:
                                  [Eetu

Pikkarainen 2019-03-20_11:03:29
UTC]

Â

                                  Thanks Martin for

interesting and important question
and Warren for great wealth of
material to thought!

Â

                                  I have a simple idea.

Biosemiotician Kalevi Kull has
written that it is the ability to
move which connects animals to the
location. Instead of that plants
reside where they happen to land.
Thus we have a deep inherited
potential and need to control the
quality of the surroundings where
we live. Evolutionary psychology
has shown that we generally prefer
certain kind of scenery which for
example reminds for the savanna
environments of our forefathers id
Africa. Still we seldom have a
possibility to remain in the best
possible scenery but our other
controlled perceptions and
stabilized environments require
otherwise. So there seems to be a
low level internal conflict
existing in our hierarchies all
the time when make our living in
cities. It could be quite similar
as the low level inflammation in
our bodies caused by unhealthy
food and ways of living. When we
get sometimes to a beautiful
environment we first simply enjoy
it because we are all the time
controlling (low level) for it and
secondly the stress state caused
by the low level conflict resolves
for a while.

Â

Â

Eetu

Â

From:
Warren Mansell <csgnet@lists.illinois.edu >
Sent: Wednesday, March
20, 2019 8:26 AM
To: mmt-csg@mmtaylor.net ;
mmt@mmtaylor.net
Cc: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: Happiness
and scenery

Â

                                  Hi

Martin, this finding is well
known, there are books about it -
The Nature Fix is excellent - and
we have a network too www.NatureMind.net.

Â

                                  In

terms of PCT, I’ve had many
thoughts that are coming
together…here are my notes and
ramblings, open source!

Â

                                    Â NatureMind

domains

Â

                                      Nature

provides a wider and deeper
‘palette’ of layered
perceptions that typically
outcompete artificial
environments in the following
ways:

Â

                                      The

need it serves is exploration,
connection & creation
which is the intrinsic need of
an infant during attachment
experiences. It is thus that
drives our social evolution.
Without nurture it becomes
need for power and control
over othersÂ

Â

                                      Can’t

explain without

                                      -

intrinsic reference points

                                      -

child development

                                      -

modes of mind

Â

                                      Otherwise

theories for child and adult
different

Â

Â

                                      Basic

behaviours at root are search,
find, investigate, utilise,
recombine…(woods versus toy
shop) - exploited.Â

Â

                                      That’s

why successful people have
these profound nature
experiences.Â

Â

                                      That’s

why ‘mystery’ images are more
interestingÂ

Â

                                      Predict

that play is less ‘imaginary’
within nature as not
necessaryÂ

Â

                                      Feedback

functions constrain perception
and therefore constrain
control. Nature provides a
wide feedback function for
perceptual control at multiple
multiple levels a mapping into
more, important CVsÂ

                                      For

each one, why is nature
better?

Â

                                        BREADTH
  • Control of attention &
    observation across natural
    landscapesÂ

Â

                                        MALLEABILITY-

Control of objects -
intensity, shape,
relationships, meaning -
sticks stones and mud
kitchens Â

Â

                                        SIMPLE

AGENTS Â - Perception of
other agents; care;
compassion with animalsÂ

Â

                                        Maintaining

self world concept identity
confidenceÂ

Â

                                        Development

of Narrative of one’s life
and family and communityÂ

Â

                                        Perception

of World existential awe awe
bigger than self
 spirituallyÂ

Â

                                        Each

level has a complex emotion
associated with its
perception (e.g. freedom,
mastery, awe, connectedness)
and helps go to that
experience when needed in
everyday life when
experiencing a life
challenge through
remembering and
metaphorically utilising
that nature memoryÂ

Â

                                        Safe

risks and managing conflict

Â

                                        Scientific

methodÂ

Â

                                        Other

theories:

                                        Attentional

resource theory - less
distractions from deeper
thought?

                                        Engages

the best bits of default
network - better understood
as reorganisationÂ

                                        Emotional

attunement to natural
beautyÂ

                                        Emotion

regulation miles ruchardson

                                        Biophilia
  • rework as preferred
    unconscious perceptions - if
    your life goals and sense of
    control depend on it you can
    overcome genetic fear of
    snakes so conversely can
    ‘overcome’ genetic need for
    nature NB anorexiaÂ
                                        Roger

ulrich Miyazaki -
Parasympathetic- [me =
reflective]

                                        Immune

system - Qing Li - tree
smellsÂ

                                        Escape

from arbitrary consumerismÂ

Â

                                        “Inhibition

uses up cognitive fuel�

                                        P45

“I feel I have time and I
feel I have space�

                                        Many

possessions in contemporary
life

                                        Bottom

up

                                        Nasal

Smells activate approach
behaviourÂ

                                        Noise

pollution Lancet 2005

                                      Heart

rate variability measurementsÂ

                                      Music

affinity and birdsong

Â

                                      Fractal

imagery - Richard Taylor

                                      Alpha

brain waves - wakefully
relaxed (? Passive
observation?); same as music;
parahippocampus. But why?
Could it be the same as
functional branching of
control hierarchies in the
brain?!

                                      Eye

tracking

                                      Search

trajectories are fractal!

‘Resonance’Â

                                      Need

to add biotensegrity

                                      Resolve

conflict by passively
observing own imagination
mode?

Â

Â

Â

Â

                                  On 20 Mar 2019, at 03:44, Martin > > > > > > Taylor (mmt-csg@mmtaylor.net > > > > > >                                       via csgnet Mailing List) <csgnet@lists.illinois.edu                                      > > > > > > > wrote:
                                    [Martin Taylor 2019.03.19.

23.34]

                                    For those interested in a PCT

approach to emotion I offer a
phenomenon from yesterday’s
Scientific Reports weekly digest
in the “Earth and Environmental
Sciences” section. The full text
is at
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-019-40854-6?WT.ec_id=SREP-20190318&sap-outbound-id=B6896327AF0EDF9BDB9458D9505F5700B4B9C719 .
Does anyone have a good
supportable PCT explanation for
this phenomenon? Here’s the
abstract…
----------
Happiness is Greater in More
Scenic Locations

·        Chanuki
Illushka Seresinhe
,

·        Tobias
Preis
,

·        George
MacKerron
&

·        Helen
Susannah Moat
Â

  •                                        Scientific
    

Reports*** ,
volume****Â 9** ,
Article number: 4498 (2019)

                                      Does

spending time in beautiful
settings boost people’s
happiness? The answer to this
question has long remained
elusive due to a paucity of
large-scale data on
environmental aesthetics and
individual happiness. Here, we
draw on two novel datasets:
first, individual happiness
data from the smartphone app,
Mappiness , and second,
crowdsourced ratings of the
“scenicness� of photographs
taken across England from the
online game Scenic-Or-Not .
We find that individuals are
happier in more scenic
locations, even when we
account for a range of factors
such as the activity the
individual was engaged in at
the time, weather conditions
and the income of local
inhabitants. Crucially, this
relationship holds not only in
natural environments, but in
built-up areas too, even after
controlling for the presence
of green space. Our results
provide evidence that the
aesthetics of the environments
that policymakers choose to
build or demolish may have
consequences for our everyday
wellbeing.


Martin

Â