Hi Warren
WM: See Bruce’s 2020 chapter?
RM: Yes.
WM: In simple terms, language is decomposed into each of the perceptual levels below the program level.
RM: Not simple enough for me. I have no idea what this means. I presume you are talking about the model, not about language itself. In my understanding of the model, language isn’t decomposed into perceptual levels below the program level; it is composed of perceptual variables from all levels of the control hierarchy, up to and including the program level.
WM: A symbolic description of our perception is not necessarily at a higher level.
RM: If what you are talking about are words, phrases and sentences, then I would say that they are symbol perceptions that are associated with experiential perceptions; they aren’t descriptions of perceptions. The word “red” doesn’t describe the experience of red; it is like the address of perceptions associated with that sound (or written) perception.
RM: And I’m pretty sure that many of these symbols are at least program type perceptions. Sentences, for examples, are symbols for perceptions, that differ in the perceptions they point to in terms of both their words and grammatical structure. For example, consider these two sentences:
Call me Ishmael.
Call me, Ishmael.
In the first we perceive a request that you call the person by the name Ishmael; in the second we perceive a request that Ishmael give you a call. The difference in meaning – in the perception each sentence points to – is called out by a comma in the written version and by intonation in the spoken version. The two sentences evoke different perceptions because of a difference in grammar, which seems to me to be a program level perception.
WM: It differs in its attempt to be objective of the self rather than subjective.
RM: That’s way over my head.
WM: You’re right though - some empirical evidence would be handy!
RM: I don’t see why; you seem to be able to do just fine without it;-)
Best
Rick