level 3

[From Bjorn Simonsen (2005.01.26,16:40 EST)]

From Bjorn Simonsen (2004.01.13, 13:17 EST)

I refer to my Re: Mol [From Bjorn Simonsen (2005.01.12, 12:25 EST)]
Are these comments about level 3, the configuration level, adequate? Can
anyone help me with my question marks? Are there other questions/comments
about level 3?

Level 3 is the configuration level. I think Bill expressed himself in one to
me logical way, when he described level 3 as a level with invariant
qualities relative to the sensations at level 2.
It is easy to understand that a certain hand-body configuration is a set of
kinaesthetically sensings with varying levels of effort (maybe also with
some intensity scalars). It is also comprehensible that visual forms or
objects are a weighted sum of different shapes, colours and maybe also
intensities.

I also understand that ringing, humming, clicking, rushing, chirping,
buzzing, knocking or rumbling are weighted sums of tones, pitches, timbres
and loudness. Equivalent phonemes and sound-shapes of different musical
instruments or human voices are hearing configurations.

Is it correct to say that the lemon taste is a configuration?

Are there any configuration qualities as regards tactition and
Equilibrioception ?

Different Input functions, comparators and output functions at level 3:
* Perceptual signals having their starting points in all essentials in the
muscles have their input functions, comparators and output functions in the;
cerebellum and thalamus and in the sensori-motor area of the cerebral
cortex.
* Perceptual signals have their starting points in the receptors for vision,
hearing, smell, taste touch and other sensations have their input functions,
comparators and output functions in the midbrain.

B:CP page 116 suggest that cerebellar damage may cause in tremor because
control systems become unstable. And the instability is of second order. I
don't understand this very well. Why should instability at the sensing level
cause tremor around three cycles per second?
Other literature tells me that the organ substantia nigra (maybe a forth
level organ in HPCT ?) produce dopamine, When substantia nigra is damaged,
dopamine is not carried to the basal ganglia where we find the sensori-motor
area of the cerebral cortex. And when these third level neurons don't get
dopamine (transmitters) in their pre synaptic areas, control at the fourth
transmission level doesn't function. But maybe I misunderstand Parkinsons
disease?
As mentioned above the perceptual signals that have their starting points in
all essentials in the muscles have their input functions, comparators and
output functions for the configuration level in the cerebellum.
Equilibrioception is the perception of balance and I guess the standing
position is a Configuration. I think we control our perception of balance at
the third level in the cerebellum. This is important, but not so important
that the control of the perception of balance is for birds and fishes. Look
at the birds at the telephone wire. Therefore we find a relative much
greater cerebellum in them.

Dependent on brain damage and where the damage is, people perceive and don't
perceive different images. Some see objects (level 3), but they don't record
movement (level 4). Some see movement (level 4), but no objects (level 3).
If we place them in front of a ball, they don't see the ball. But they see
something when the ball is moving.
I think this fit in with HPCT's system with sensing, category and
transmission.
If an organism could not control higher levels than configuration, the
organism and all organs in the organism would be locked.
I see that this type of HPCT passage is not very interesting. That is
understandable. But I have questions when we reach the sixth level and
higher, therefore I continue with one level each week. Contemporary I study
the Visual system http://webvision.med.utah.edu/ and in a month I guess I
have more to say at the three, four lowest levels.
Bjorn

[From Rick Marken (2005.01.26.1340)]

···

Bjorn Simonsen (2005.01.26,16:40 EST)]

--

If an organism could not control higher levels than configuration, the
organism and all organs in the organism would be locked.

I don't think this is necessarily true. Such an organism would not be able
to control perceptions above the configuration level, but that doesn't mean
it couldn't move (assuming that an organism that is "locked" is one that
can't move). An organism that couldn't control higher level perceptions than
configurations just wouldn't be able to control variables that change over
time (such as its own movements). An paramecium probably comes close to
being an organism that can't control at much higher than the configuration
level. And yet, it moves.

Best

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

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

This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and
may contain privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use,
disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended
recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all copies
of the original message.

[From Bjorn Simonsen (2005.01.27,10:00 EST)]

From Rick Marken (2005.01.26.1340)

Bjorn Simonsen (2005.01.26,16:40 EST)

I don't think this is necessarily true. ........
...
An paramecium probably comes close to
being an organism that can't control at much higher than
the configuration level. And yet, it moves.

If an organism could not control higher levels than
configuration, the organism and all organs in the
organism would be locked.

Saying "If an organism could not control higher levels than configuration.."
implies that the organism has a nervous system. My knowledge tells me that a
paramecium is a one-celled Ciliata.
A digression. I just red about a sea squirt. As an young organism the sea
squirt is a larva, swimming around. It can make movements and it has a
preliminary stage suitable an ear and an eye. When it's evolution is
finished, it changes it's style of life and fixes to a stone. After it has
fixed to a stone it digests it's own brain.
Bjorn

[From Rick Marken (2005.01.28.0920)]

Bjorn Simonsen (2005.01.27,10:00 EST)]

Saying "If an organism could not control higher levels than configuration.."
implies that the organism has a nervous system.

I don't believe this is true at all. Control theory is a functional model of
how control can happen. It doesn't require that the control system be
implemented in a particular way. And we know that there are many non-neural
-- and even non-electronic -- control systems, like the Watts fly ball
governor (a mechanical system), for example.

Best

Rick

···

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

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

This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and
may contain privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use,
disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended
recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all copies
of the original message.

[From Bjorn Simonsen (2005.01.31,10:30 EST)]

From Rick Marken (2005.01.28.0920)

Bjorn Simonsen (2005.01.27,10:00 EST)]

Saying "If an organism could not control higher levels than

configuration.."

>implies that the organism has a nervous system.

I don't believe this is true at all. Control theory is a functional model

of

how control can happen. It doesn't require that the control system be
implemented in a particular way. And we know that there are many non-neural
-- and even non-electronic -- control systems, like the Watts fly ball
governor (a mechanical system), for example.

Yes there are "not neural" control systems. I don't know if any are
hierarchic. And I haven't heard about a "not neural" hierarchic control
system with level three named the configuration level. Read (>) once more
"If an organism...."
Bjorn

[From Rick Marken (2005.01.31.1425)]

Bjorn Simonsen (2005.01.31,10:30 EST)

Yes there are "not neural" control systems. I don't know
if any are hierarchic. And I haven't heard about a "not
neural" hierarchic control system with level three named
the configuration level. Read (>) once more "If an organism...."

Not all organisms have neuron-based nervous systems. Single celled
organisms, like amoebae, don't have nervous systems based on neurons (as far
as I know) but it seems that they can perceive and control intensities,
sensations and, possibly, transitions. So you have a two to three level
control organization with no neurons.

This is just my guess, of course. Is anyone aware of any tests for the
variables controlled by amoebae? I think that would be very interesting
research.

Best

Rick

···

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

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

This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and
may contain privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use,
disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended
recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all copies
of the original message.

[From Bjorn Simonsen (2005.02.01,12:10EST)]

From Rick Marken (2005.01.31.1425)
Not all organisms have neuron-based nervous systems. Single celled
organisms, like amoebae, don't have nervous systems based on neurons (as

far

as I know) but it seems that they can perceive and control intensities,
sensations and, possibly, transitions. So you have a two to three level
control organization with no neurons.

You are right. The amoeba use complex networks of biochemical reactions to
sense the world around them, make decisions, and take action (a chemotaxic
response to concentration gradients of nutrient (and other) substances in
the surrounding water). Maybe we can say that an amoeba also has awareness
and memory because it responds in the same way as regards light and
nutritient. I have not thought about awareness and memory in this way.

This is just my guess, of course. Is anyone aware of any tests for the
variables controlled by amoebae? I think that would be very interesting
research.

Maybe somebody knows.

http://www.pims.math.ca/industrial/2003/ubc-bio/01-16-PeterJThomas.html

Shall we say that plants are able to sense. They "sense" the force of
gravity and grow the opposite way. They "sense" the light from the sun and
grow against the light. They also unfold their flowers by day and fold their
flowers by night (light/not light).
Bjorn

[From Rick Marken (2005.02.02.1010)]

Bjorn Simonsen (2005.02.01,12:10EST)--

>From Rick Marken (2005.01.31.1425)

Single celled organisms, like amoebae, don't have nervous systems
based on neurons (as far as I know) but it seems that they can
perceive and control intensities, sensations and, possibly,
transitions.

You are right.

This is just my guess, of course.

Shall we say that plants are able to sense.

Yes. We know plants sense because we know plants control (that's what
phototropisms are, for example; control of the amount of light falling on a
plant surface). Amoebae also control variables, such as their location
relative to food.

I think amoebae and plants provide nice examples of what's wrong with trying
to understand control from the neural or biochemical level. There clearly is
nothing about _how_ control is implemented (probably biochemically in
amoebae and plants, neurally in animals, hydraullically in Egyptian water
clocks) that explains controlling. The article by Thomas that you send
illustrates the point clearly. Thomas thinks that single-celled organisms
use "complex networks of biochemical reactions to sense the world around
them, make decisions, and take action". But we know that this is not how
control works. There is no decision making involved in control. We know,
from modeling control, that, to the extent that biochemical reactions are
the basis of the controlling done by amoebae, these reactions must be
involved in specifying the states of chemical variables that the perceptual
variables controlled by the amoebae. The chemical reactions must also do the
equivalent of a subtraction (of chemical perceptual and reference signal) to
produce the chemical equivalent of an error signal that drives the output
that keeps the controlled perceptual signal under control.

I think neurologists and biochemists have far more to learn about control
from PCT than PCT has to learn about control from neurologists and
biochemists.

Best

Rick

···

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

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

This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and
may contain privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use,
disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended
recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all copies
of the original message.