It's all perception

CSGnet Archive CSG2003
1

While I agree that “it’s all
perception,” I think it is also the case that,

taken literally, that statement leads nowhere. I’ve always had the
sense

that many people take it to mean that there is no world out there, at
least

not one that can be proven to exist. I don’t buy that for a
minute.
[From Bill Powers (2003.04.01.0955 MST)]

Fred Nickols (2003.004.01.0812 ET) –

The point is that you have to prove it, and the proof is never totally
certain or complete. This means that the mere feeling of conviction that
something is true, or exists, is not enough. That feeling of certainty is
simply another perception, and says nothing about the reality of what is
experienced.

Tom Hancock said that his feeling that Jesus Christ dwells inside him is
as vivid and real as my feeling that my wife is real. I can accept that.
But my feeling that my wife is real is a perception, just as is his
feeling that Christ is in him. The reality of what underlies my
perception of my wife has been changing for close to 47 years and I still
expect to discover new things about her, and change my mind about things
I have “known” for years. I have a strong sense that there is a
person there behind my perceptions, and the wonder is that there has been
communication for all these years despite the fact that so much
hypothesizing and testing is involved. The closer we get to people, the
clearer it is that our own perceptions are the only way we can be in
touch with them. But certainty will always elude us.

We can and do
corroborate our perceptions in the course of sharing and

communicating with others whose knowledge of the world is constrained
by

their perceptions (and perceptual apparatus). We design and conduct
very

good (and very poor) experiments that serve to confirm what we suspect
or

conclude based on our perceptions.

So, I am led to ask, “What is the point of saying that ‘it’s all
perception’?”

You said it yourself. We can, do, and MUST corroborate our perceptions by
checking with others, and by experimenting directly with natural
phenomena, because there is no other valid route to truth about reality.
People who think their experiences are reality itself just because they
have them – who never realize that the real world might be different
from the way they experience it – are not given to testing or
experimenting. Instead, they defend the validity of their perceptions and
look for any signs that they are right, ignoring counterexamples and
shrugging off contradictions. That is what comes from NOT keeping in mind
the idea that the real world we experience is already inside our heads,
and it is the external world that we must conjecture about, and test, and
experiment with to infer what goes on out there.

Best,

Bill P.

2

[From Fred Nickols (2003.004.01.0812 ET)] --

Bill Powers (2003.03.31.0540 MST)

Bruce Gregory (2003.0331.0525)--

As others are discovering, it is easy to underestimate the gain with
which people control higher order perceptions.

Yes. My mistake.

This makes me wonder how seriously others take the idea that "it's all
perception."

While I agree that "it's all perception," I think it is also the case that,
taken literally, that statement leads nowhere. I've always had the sense
that many people take it to mean that there is no world out there, at least
not one that can be proven to exist. I don't buy that for a minute. We
can and do corroborate our perceptions in the course of sharing and
communicating with others whose knowledge of the world is constrained by
their perceptions (and perceptual apparatus). We design and conduct very
good (and very poor) experiments that serve to confirm what we suspect or
conclude based on our perceptions.

So, I am led to ask, "What is the point of saying that 'it's all perception'?"

Fred Nickols
nickols@safe-t.net

3

[From Rick Marken (2003.04.01.0850)]

Fred Nickols (2003.004.01.0812 ET)--

While I agree that "it's all perception," I think it is also the case that,
taken literally, that statement leads nowhere. I've always had the sense
that many people take it to mean that there is no world out there, at least
not one that can be proven to exist. I don't buy that for a minute. We
can and do corroborate our perceptions in the course of sharing and
communicating with others whose knowledge of the world is constrained by
their perceptions (and perceptual apparatus). We design and conduct very
good (and very poor) experiments that serve to confirm what we suspect or
conclude based on our perceptions.

So, I am led to ask, "What is the point of saying that 'it's all perception'?"

I completely agree with you, Fred. I think talking about control theory this way
-- as the control of perception -- has created many problems. The main problem is
that it leads people to think that one of the messages of PCT is what you say:
that there is no real world out there and, thus, no "truth". Of course, PCT says
nothing of the kind. The real world is an important part of the PCT model (it's
the environment, including outputs, feedback function, disturbance and controlled
variables). So the real world (as it is currently understood in terms of physical
models) is an essential component of PCT and the correctness (truth value) of our
conception of that world is attested to by the success of the PCT model itself.

For me, the point of saying that "it's all perception" is to call attention to the
fact that we can experience (and control) the same reality in many different ways.
This means that it's possible that two different people will perceive and, thus,
control the same reality differently. It also means that it's possible that some
ways of perceiving the same reality may result in better control than other ways.

One of the practical benefits of pointing out the fact that we can perceive the
same reality in different ways shows up in the method of levels (MOL), where you
try to help a person become conscious of a higher level way of perceiving the same
objective state of affairs. Of course, another practical benefit of seeing that
"it's all perception" is in modeling. A central feature of correctly modeling some
behavior using PCT is finding the appropriate mathematical mapping of reality
(environmental variables) into perceptual signals. The mathematical mapping that
works best is a model of the perceptual process which is central to control.

Best regards

Rick

···

--
Richard S. Marken, Ph.D.
Senior Behavioral Scientist
The RAND Corporation
PO Box 2138
1700 Main Street
Santa Monica, CA 90407-2138
Tel: 310-393-0411 x7971
Fax: 310-451-7018
E-mail: rmarken@rand.org

4

[From Bruce Gregory (2003.0401.0933)]

Fred Nickols (2003.004.01.0812 ET)

So, I am led to ask, "What is the point of saying that 'it's all
perception'?"

There may well be a "real" world out there, but all we have access to is our
perceptions and the stories we tell about those perceptions (for example, the
story you tell in this post).

5

[From Fred Nickols (2003.04.01.0950)] --

Bruce Gregory (2003.0401.0933)

Fred Nickols (2003.004.01.0812 ET)

So, I am led to ask, "What is the point of saying that 'it's all
perception'?"

There may well be a "real" world out there, but all we have access to is our
perceptions and the stories we tell about those perceptions (for example, the
story you tell in this post).

So?

Fred Nickols
nickols@safe-t.net

6

[From Rick Marken (2003.04.01.1010)]

Bill Powers (2003.04.01.0955 MST)–
Fred Nickols (2003.004.01.0812 ET) –

So, I am led to ask,
“What is the point of saying that ‘it’s all perception’?”

You said it yourself. We can, do, and MUST corroborate our perceptions
by checking with others, and by experimenting directly with natural phenomena,
because there is no other valid route to truth about reality. People who
think their experiences are reality itself just because they have them
– who never realize that the real world might be different from the way
they experience it – are not given to testing or experimenting. Instead,
they defend the validity of their perceptions and look for any signs that
they are right, ignoring counterexamples and shrugging off contradictions.
That is what comes from NOT keeping in mind the idea that the real world
we experience is already inside our heads, and it is the external world
that we must conjecture about, and test, and experiment with to infer what
goes on out there

While I completely agree with the main thrust of what you say in this post,
I do take some issue with the last paragraph. I think Fred Nickols and
I are counter examples. I know I am, anyway. I was one of those people
who think their experiences are reality itself. I didn’t really, truly
understand that “it’s all perception” until I studied perception in graduate
school. It’s not an easy concept to grasp. Nevertheless, while I was still
dogmatically slumbering under the assumption that my experience was reality
I was very much the scientist, willing to test and experiment to check
the validity of my beliefs. Because I was philosophically naive I didn’t
think of this as a process of testing the validity of my perceptions, but
that’s what I was doing. So even without understanding that “it’s
all perception” I was able to act as skeptic, experimenting and testing
my beliefs. I think Fred is like me and many others who are skeptics at
heart even though we don’t (or didn’t) necessary understand the deep philosophical
basis for being so.
On the other hand, I have seen many people who ostensibly understand
that “it’s all perception” using this epistemological fact as a justification
for not testing of experimenting at all. These people argue that,
since it is all perception there is no “right” way to see things. Thus,
there is no “truth” and no reason to look for it. Instead of being
given to testing or experimenting, these people tacitly defend the
validity of their own point of view by pointing out that contradictory
points of view, even when those points of view are evidence based, are
“just perceptions”.

I think the fact that “it’s all perception” is an important message
of PCT. But it’s a message that is easily misinterpreted (and misused).

Best regards

Rick

···

–

Richard S. Marken, Ph.D.

Senior Behavioral Scientist

The RAND Corporation

PO Box 2138

1700 Main Street

Santa Monica, CA 90407-2138

Tel: 310-393-0411 x7971

Fax: 310-451-7018

E-mail: rmarken@rand.org

7

[From Bruce Gregory (2003.0401.1049)]

Fred Nickols (2003.04.01.0950)

So?

So, nothing, so long long as you realize that your
stories are stories. Most people lose sight of that and
think that their stories are "true." I'm sure you can
think of examples of this phenomenon.

8

[From Rick Marken (2003.04.01.1400)]

Bill Powers (2003.04.01.1306 MST)]

Rick Marken (2003.04.01.1010)]

> On the other hand, I have seen many people who ostensibly understand that
>"it's all perception" using this epistemological fact as a justification
> for _not_ testing of experimenting at all. These people argue
> that, since it is all perception there is no "right" way to see things.
> Thus, there is no "truth" and no reason to look for it. Instead of being
> given to testing or experimenting, these people tacitly defend
> the validity of their own point of view by pointing out that contradictory
> points of view, even when those points of view are evidence based, are
>"just perceptions".

They are.

Of course they are. That's not my point. My point was simply that these people are
using the (valid, to my mind) idea that "it's all perception" as an argument
against opposing points of view. If their argument were that all points of view,
including their own, are brought into question by the fact that "it's all
perception" I would have no problem. My problem is with the use of "it's all
perception" as an argument against particular points of view. The fact that it's
all perception brings all points of view into question, which, I think, makes it a
pretty useless basis for arguing against a particular point of view. For example,
answering an argument by saying "that's just your perception" is an equally valid
argument against itself: "that it's 'just my perception' is just your
perception". And, of course, both parties are right.

Best regards

Rick

···

--
Richard S. Marken, Ph.D.
Senior Behavioral Scientist
The RAND Corporation
PO Box 2138
1700 Main Street
Santa Monica, CA 90407-2138
Tel: 310-393-0411 x7971
Fax: 310-451-7018
E-mail: rmarken@rand.org

9

[From Rick Marken (2003.04.01.1410)]

Paule Steichen wrote:

in and out...Sometimes the discussion here seems more philosophical. Like
Leibnitz vs Heidegger...What about phenomenology ?

To the extent that phenomenology is awareness of aspects of one's own perceptual
experience then phenomenology is certainly something we use in studying PCT. I use
it, anyway.

Best regards

Rick

···

--
Richard S. Marken, Ph.D.
Senior Behavioral Scientist
The RAND Corporation
PO Box 2138
1700 Main Street
Santa Monica, CA 90407-2138
Tel: 310-393-0411 x7971
Fax: 310-451-7018
E-mail: rmarken@rand.org

10

[From Rick Marken (2003.04.01.1430)]

Bill Powers (2003.04.01.1306 MST)]

Rick Marken (2003.04.01.1010)]

> I think Fred is like me and many
>others who are skeptics at heart even though we don't (or didn't)
>necessary understand the deep philosophical basis for being so.

That takes care of the scientific types of perceptions. What about the
rest? As Bruce G. observed, people in his class were all enthusiastic about
the PCT view, but he had some doubts about how far their understanding
extended to other aspects of their lives. What about your perception that
music creates emotional responses in you? How about your political views?
Your perceptions of Linda? Your kids?

Perceptions, all. What's your point? I'm not really that interested in being
skeptical about the basis of those perceptions (except, possibly, my political
perceptions). They're just pleasant aspects of my experience. But I have no doubt
that they are just my perceptions and I hope they remain pleasant ones.

Best

Rick

···

--
Richard S. Marken, Ph.D.
Senior Behavioral Scientist
The RAND Corporation
PO Box 2138
1700 Main Street
Santa Monica, CA 90407-2138
Tel: 310-393-0411 x7971
Fax: 310-451-7018
E-mail: rmarken@rand.org

11

[From Bill Powers (2003.04.01.1306 MST)]

Rick Marken (2003.04.01.1010)]

While I completely agree with the main thrust of what you say in this
post, I do take some issue with the last paragraph. I think Fred Nickols
and I are counter examples. I know I am, anyway. I was one of those
people who think their experiences are reality itself. I didn't really,
truly understand that "it's all perception" until I studied perception in
graduate school. It's not an easy concept to grasp. Nevertheless, while I
was still dogmatically slumbering under the assumption that my experience
_was_ reality I was very much the scientist, willing to test and
experiment to check the validity of my beliefs. Because I was
philosophically naive I didn't think of this as a process of testing the
validity of my perceptions, but that's what I was doing. So even without
understanding that "it's all perception" I was able to act as skeptic,
experimenting and testing my beliefs. I think Fred is like me and many
others who are skeptics at heart even though we don't (or didn't)
necessary understand the deep philosophical basis for being so.

That takes care of the scientific types of perceptions. What about the
rest? As Bruce G. observed, people in his class were all enthusiastic about
the PCT view, but he had some doubts about how far their understanding
extended to other aspects of their lives. What about your perception that
music creates emotional responses in you? How about your political views?
Your perceptions of Linda? Your kids?

I think it's extremely difficult to maintain the "perception" point of view
in all regards all of the time. In fact it's probably best to take it in
small doses; there are so many mistakes one can make, as you point out next:

>On the other hand, I have seen many people who ostensibly understand that
"it's all >perception" using this epistemological fact as a justification
for _not_ testing of >experimenting at all. These people argue
that, since it is all perception there is no >"right" way to see things.
Thus, there is no "truth" and no reason to look for it. >Instead of being
given to testing or experimenting, these people tacitly defend
the >validity of their own point of view by pointing out that contradictory
points of view, >even when those points of view are evidence based, are
"just perceptions".

They are. Evidence is perception, too. As I say, this is not a simple
subject, and what you say here shows the kinds of problems that can arise
from treating it too simply. How do scientists decide what to accept as
evidence, what forms of mental processes to accept as valid analysis and
evaluation? Is the truth to be decided by a vote? By a computer? An
editorial board? We've agreed that not all theories are created equal; some
are better than others. But by what criteria do we say that? My own choice
is to put prediction first.Theories that predict well are to be preferred
to those that predict less well. Internal consistency a close second: the
theory should not contradict itself, as far as it has been worked out. And
quantitative calculation comes next: theories should lead to predicting
measurements, not just categories of events.

Now, _should_ theories meet those criteria? I can't say, All I can say is
that what I mean by a good theory is one that meets them. I can give lots
of reasons which I hope others have either already worked out for
themselves, or can accept. There's no court I can take offenders to,
however, to make them mend their ways. I can't refer to an Ultimate
Authority, because I don't know of one (if there is one, I don't know how
to submit questions in such a way that I can be sure I didn't make up the
answer myself).

So it goes.I think it comes down to finding agreement among people whose
thinking I respect. Why I respect one bunch more than another is just one
more of those difficult questions which seem to come up more often as one
gets deeper into this subject. Do I agree with them because I respect them,
or respect them because I agree with them?

I think the fact that "it's all perception" is an important message of
PCT. But it's a message that is easily misinterpreted (and misused).

It is a koan. In the process of misinterpreting and misuing it, we reach
understanding.

Best,

Bill P.

12

[From Fred Nickols (2003.04.01.1556 ET)] --

Rick Marken (2003.04.01.0850)]

> Fred Nickols (2003.004.01.0812 ET)--

> So, I am led to ask, "What is the point of saying that 'it's all
perception'?"

I completely agree with you, Fred. I think talking about control theory
this way
-- as the control of perception -- has created many problems. The main
problem is
that it leads people to think that one of the messages of PCT is what you say:
that there is no real world out there and, thus, no "truth".

I think that's sort of what I was driving at. Thanks for putting it more
assertively.

Fred Nickols
nickols@safe-t.net
www.nickols.us

13

in and out...Sometimes the discussion here seems more philosophical. Like
Leibnitz vs Heidegger...What about phenomenology ?
Paule A. Steichen. Asch, Ph.D.
IBIS Int'l
Individual Building of Integrated Success
2101 Grandin Road
Cincinnati OH 45208
voicemail: (513) 289-5998
fax: (513) 871-soul/7685
pasteichenasch@fuse.net

···

----- Original Message -----
From: "Fred Nickols" <nickols@SAFE-T.NET>
To: <CSGNET@listserv.uiuc.edu>
Sent: Tuesday, April 01, 2003 3:57 PM
Subject: Re: It's all perception

[From Fred Nickols (2003.04.01.1556 ET)] --

>Rick Marken (2003.04.01.0850)]
>
> > Fred Nickols (2003.004.01.0812 ET)--
>
> > So, I am led to ask, "What is the point of saying that 'it's all
> perception'?"
>
>I completely agree with you, Fred. I think talking about control theory
>this way
>-- as the control of perception -- has created many problems. The main
>problem is
>that it leads people to think that one of the messages of PCT is what you

say:

>that there is no real world out there and, thus, no "truth".

I think that's sort of what I was driving at. Thanks for putting it more
assertively.

Fred Nickols
nickols@safe-t.net
www.nickols.us

14

Again, without wanting to mix up my personal faith with science, Edith Stein
(who worked in Freiburg with the phenomenologists) used the philosophy to
beef up her argment of salvation. I am not familiar with the intricacies of
her reasoning. But it is worth noting.

As I am writing, reading, working and watching the news, I am thinking about
the shifting anchor of perception and their interpretation. I find it
amazing. Like a pendulum...

I will not say more as I remind myself of my place in regard to the higly
regarded people here (I am not kidding)

Paule A. Steichen. Asch, Ph.D.
IBIS Int'l
Individual Building of Integrated Success
2101 Grandin Road
Cincinnati OH 45208
voicemail: (513) 289-5998
fax: (513) 871-soul/7685
pasteichenasch@fuse.net

···

----- Original Message -----
From: "Richard Marken" <marken@MINDREADINGS.COM>
To: <CSGNET@listserv.uiuc.edu>
Sent: Tuesday, April 01, 2003 2:12 PM
Subject: Re: It's all perception

[From Rick Marken (2003.04.01.1410)]

Paule Steichen wrote:

> in and out...Sometimes the discussion here seems more philosophical.

Like

> Leibnitz vs Heidegger...What about phenomenology ?

To the extent that phenomenology is awareness of aspects of one's own

perceptual

experience then phenomenology is certainly something we use in studying

PCT. I use

it, anyway.

Best regards

Rick
--
Richard S. Marken, Ph.D.
Senior Behavioral Scientist
The RAND Corporation
PO Box 2138
1700 Main Street
Santa Monica, CA 90407-2138
Tel: 310-393-0411 x7971
Fax: 310-451-7018
E-mail: rmarken@rand.org

15

Bill Powers wrote:

You said it yourself. We can, do, and MUST corroborate our perceptions
by checking with others,

and by experimenting directly with natural phenomena, because there
is no other valid route to truth about reality.

Have you read Foucault who proposes the idea
of ‘regimes of truth’? These are the truths that we arrive at by, in Bill’s
words, "corroborating our perceptions by checking with others,

and by experimenting directly with natural
phenomena."

Interesting?

Ray [From Ray Bennett
(2003.04.02.2215 EST Aust)]

16

From Phil Runkel, commenting on Bill P's missive of 1 Apr 03 @ 1306:

I have read more philosohpy of science than I care to remember, and your
remarks of 1 April are the best I have read. Most succinct, too. It
may be, of course, that I would not enjoy your remarks as much if I had
not read all that palaver. ��Phil R.

17

[From Bill Powers (2003.04.02.1638 MST)]

Ray Bennett (2003.04.02) --

Have you read Foucault who proposes the idea of 'regimes of truth'? These
are the truths that we arrive at by, in Bill's words, "corroborating our
perceptions by checking with others,

and by experimenting directly with natural phenomena."
Interesting?

I don't know, I haven't read him. What does he say?

Best,

Bill P.

18

[From Bruce Gregory (2003.0403.1020)]

"The very beautiful and concise mathematical language of quantum mechanics is
designed to make it impossible to say things like the naughty things I've just
said, and, preferably, even impossible to think such thoughts. The
mathematical language says that if you ask this particular question about that
particular stuff, then these are the possible answers and their likelihoods.
It refuses to talk about what actually happens, beyond giving you the odds for
various possibilities. And it is utterly incapable of formulating questions
about what would have happened under altered conditions based on what actually
did happen under actual conditions."

                  N. David Mermin, Amer. J. Physics, 71, p. 298 April 2003

19

[From Rick Marken (2003.04.03.1115)]

Bruce Gregory (2003.0403.1324)

It is a comment on the conviction that we are in touch with a real external
world with properties independent of perception.

PCT assumes that we are in touch with a world with properties that are independent
of perception. This is embodied in the simple assumption that p = f(qi); what we
perceive (p) is a function of environmental variables (qi); the properties of qi
are obviously independent of p while p is dependent (via the function f()) on the
properties of qi. What does a model of behavior look like that assumes that we are
_not_ in touch with a real, external world with properties independent of
perception?

Best

Rick

···

---
Richard S. Marken, Ph.D.
Senior Behavioral Scientist
The RAND Corporation
PO Box 2138
1700 Main Street
Santa Monica, CA 90407-2138
Tel: 310-393-0411 x7971
Fax: 310-451-7018
E-mail: rmarken@rand.org

20

what is it in response to precsiely? I am confused...apologies if I should
not be...
Paule A. Steichen. Asch, Ph.D.
IBIS Int'l
Individual Building of Integrated Success
2101 Grandin Road
Cincinnati OH 45208
voicemail: (513) 289-5998
fax: (513) 871-soul/7685
pasteichenasch@fuse.net

···

----- Original Message -----
From: "Bruce Gregory" <bruce@JOINCANADANOW.ORG>
To: <CSGNET@listserv.uiuc.edu>
Sent: Thursday, April 03, 2003 10:28 AM
Subject: Re: It's all perception

[From Bruce Gregory (2003.0403.1020)]

"The very beautiful and concise mathematical language of quantum mechanics

is

designed to make it impossible to say things like the naughty things I've

just

said, and, preferably, even impossible to think such thoughts. The
mathematical language says that if you ask this particular question about

that

particular stuff, then these are the possible answers and their

likelihoods.

It refuses to talk about what actually happens, beyond giving you the odds

for

various possibilities. And it is utterly incapable of formulating

questions

about what would have happened under altered conditions based on what

actually

did happen under actual conditions."

                  N. David Mermin, Amer. J. Physics, 71, p. 298 April 2003