[From Bruce Gregory (2003.0403.1324)]
Paule Steichen wrote:
what is it in response to precsiely? I am confused...apologies if I should
not be...
It is a comment on the conviction that we are in touch with a real external
world with properties independent of perception.
thanks...I am going to check my delusions against the real world...and play
some golf (tongue-in-cheek)
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 1:24 PM
Subject: Re: It's all perception
[From Bruce Gregory (2003.0403.1324)]
Paule Steichen wrote:
> what is it in response to precsiely? I am confused...apologies if I
should
> not be...
It is a comment on the conviction that we are in touch with a real
external
world with properties independent of perception.
excellent... I am thinking about Piaget's work too
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: Thursday, April 03, 2003 11:16 AM
Subject: Re: It's all perception
[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
[From Rick Marken (2003.04.03.1510)]
Bruce Gregory (2003.0403.1732)--
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. ...PCT is a classical, i.e., non-quantum, theory and therefore perfectly free to
postulate a real external world with properties independent of perception.
Problems only emerge when we ask what that world is _really_ like on an atomic
scale. It is our inability to answer this question that suggests that the
classical world is a model and not a "picture" of reality.
So we can assume that we are in touch with a real, external world with properties
independent of perception as long as we don't ask what that world is _really_ like on
an atomic scale? If so, that's OK with me. I've never imagined that I would ever know
what the real world -- the world with properties independent of my perception -- is
_really_ like, on an atomic or _any_ scale. I'm content to know the real world only in
terms of successful scientific models of that world.
I thought the comment was questioning the conviction that there _is_ a real world, with
properties independent of perception, as opposed to the conviction that it is all
perception, i.e. solipsism. My question was really "how does a solipsist build a
scientific model of behavior (or of anything, for that matter)"?
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
[From Bruce Gregory (2003.0403.1732)]
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?
PCT is a classical, i.e., non-quantum, theory and therefore perfectly free to
postulate a real external world with properties independent of perception.
Problems only emerge when we ask what that world is _really_ like on an atomic
scale. It is our inability to answer this question that suggests that the
classical world is a model and not a "picture" of reality.
[From Bruce Gregory (2003.0403.1949)]
Rick Marken (2003.04.03.1510)
I thought the comment was questioning the conviction that there _is_ a real world, with
properties independent of perception, as opposed to the conviction that it is all
perception, i.e. solipsism. My question was really "how does a solipsist build a
scientific model of behavior (or of anything, for that matter)"?
Same way we non-solipsists do, I guess. Remember the woman who
introduced herself to Bertrand Russell and said, "It's such a pleasure
to meet another solipsist."
--
Bruce Gregory lives with the poet and painter Gray Jacobik in the future
Canadian Province of New England.
[From Dag Forssell (920513-1)]
I composed this yesterday morning, but was unable to steal the time to
put it down. So here goes:
Wayne Hershberger (920511)
I've been thinking some more, and would like to propose the following:
You have consumed a few of those breakfasts, perhaps 20,000, and each
time you grasped a cup you tested your understanding/perception of the
BOSS REALITY. Each time you made contact with something (the cup) as
expected, you confirmed your perception to be accurate.
Each reach, step, and movement becomes a test of the validity of your
perception of BOSS REALITY. If you make a move every second in each
50,000 second day, you may have made one billion tests of your perceptual
understanding of BOSS REALITY, all successful - except for a lot of
fumbles when you were a baby (before your perception machinery was fully
developed) and an occasional stumble, when you failed to pay attention.
It is not surprising that you and philosophers before you have concluded
that you have direct knowledge of BOSS REALITY, presented in living color
and stereophonic sound.
When you stand up and push on one eye while covering the other, all of
a sudden, BOSS REALITY does not cooperate. You fall because your
perceptual construct of your boss realty is not good enough.
Popper suggests that you can NEVER prove a theory true. But you can prove
it false. We just tested it and proved it false.
When - after a billion successes - you prove that all you have is a
perception of that BOSS REALTY, you have a choice to make. You can
dismiss the experiment that proves you wrong, fall back (intuitively) on
statistics and say: One to a billion against does not count. I KNOW my
BOSS REALITY and nobody is going to take it away from me.
Or you can say: It's all perception.
Your knowledge of the BOSS REALITY is limited by your perceptual
capability. Our "hard" scientists tell us, based on their theories and
measurements/perceptions, that their percepts of the BOSS REALITY
includes infrared radiation, X-rays, photons, magnetism and a host of
other "phenomena." All these are perceptions, too, which most of us
incorporate without even studying the constructs in any detail.
Halfway up the HPCT perception ladder, a person may agree with Ed Ford
that a husband and wife will have DIFFERENT concepts of "wife," but human
nature being what it is, there will be an intuitive tendency to say: One
to one against does not count. I KNOW my BOSS REALITY. I know what a wife
is (sort of) and I will continue to use that information. After all, mine
is the only percept I have access to.
When we come to a miracle, the natural tendency, given a LONG history of
perceiving in a certain way, is to say: It may look like a billion to one
against to you, but I KNOW my BOSS (REALITY) and nobody is going to take
it away from me.
It goes against all intuition and apparent dependability of our basic
senses to say: It's all perception, but it is the only conclusion I can
defend, given my perceptual constructs.
I think that when a person recognizes and acknowledges this, the person
is more free to reorganize (without internal conflict), respect his
fellow man (complete with individual perceptual constructs) and promote
a better social order with more degrees of freedom for all.
There IS a BOSS REALITY. Our challenge is to perceive it as effectively
and accurately as we can, while recognizing that this is ALL we CAN do.
The BOSS REALITY does place constraints on our degrees of freedom.
I perceive that HPCT provides an effective (and as accurate as can be had
at present) perception of the BOSS REALITY of our minds.
The question of how to control well with maximum degrees of freedom for
all will quickly demand attention to issues of influence, "social
control" if you will, the principles or "standards" we live by, and the
quality of information in all corners of our Hierarchical Perceptual
Control System.
It's all perception! AND Warm Regards!
Dag