[From Bjorn Simonsen (2005.05.23,13:05 EST)]
I have been away from CSG a while, but PCT is in my thoughts and I have
spent some time with PowerSim and Smalltalk. I have also spent time on
"Quantum Phenomenology" by Allan F. Randall. I hope we can talk more about
that later, but now I will continue with my understanding of the different
levels in HPCT. I don't take the levels as cut and dried, but as basis for
comments. But I am impressed by Bill's analytic power when he draw up the
next level and the next level in 1973 and surprised by its survival
function.
I refer to my Re: Mol [From Bjorn Simonsen (2005.01.12, 12:25 EST)]
Are these comments about level 5, the Control of Sequence level, adequate?
Can anyone help me with my question marks? Are there other
questions/comments about level 5?
I think Bickford, Doge and Vihlein did interesting Depth Stimulation
experiments in 1960. I see the connexion between their experiments and
Bill's thoughts about control for sequences, but I am surprised at the more
modern accounts from the limbic system. Maybe I am ignorant, but it looks to
me that modern accounts talk more about memory, sexual behavior, visceral
motor activity and emotional expression relative to the limbic system. Is
the work of Bickford, Dodge and Vihlein forgotten?
The way Bill explains the signals for the three phonemes in the word "juice"
is clearly set out. And I understand the recirculation loops and
concatenated nerves having the same "design" when we both hear or say the
word "juice". I understand the same "design" is current (coarse features)
when I grasp a thing on the table in front of me. I elevate my upper arm
(j), I stretch my forearm (oo) and I stretch my fingers (ss).
How is it with other senses. Does anyone know about events when we talk
about smell and taste and about sense of touch?
I am a bit uncertain when Bill talks about the nerves as storage elements. I
don't picture to myself that the body of the nerves store the signals as a
potential. I see it as if dendrites receive signals and bring them to the
cell body. Here action potentials are created and they continue in the axon
and the branches of the axon. The branches bring the signal back to the
dendrites or back to the cell body. In this way the cell body gets the
signal back and a new action potentials can be created. Is this correct?
bjorn
[From Bill Powers (2005.05.23.0916 MDT)]
Bjorn Simonsen (2005.05.23,13:05 EST) --
Welcome back, Bjorn. Hope you had a good vacation.
I am a bit uncertain when Bill talks about the nerves as storage elements. I
don't picture to myself that the body of the nerves store the signals as a
potential.
Please cite the place where I seem to have said that nerves are storage elements. I don't believe they are, so I must have mis-communicated something.
Perhaps you're thinking of my ideas about neurotransmitters -- that they contribute to the concentration of certain chemicals inside the receiving cell body, and that it is this concentration that determines the firing rate of the cell. This is certainly "storage" of some kind, but the time constant of changes in these concentrations is measured in small fractions of a second, so it's not storage in the sense of ordinary memory or anything like that. Was that what you were referring to?
Best,
Bill P.
[From Bjorn Simonsen (2005.05.23,19:45 EST)]
From Bill Powers (2005.05.23.0916 MDT)
Please cite the place where I seem to have said that nerves are storage
elements. I don't believe they are, so I must have mis-communicated
something.
Well, I misunderstood your B:CP page 142, below Figure 11.1: First, we need
to construct a storage element which can be turned on or of by input signals
and will stay in whatever state it was left".
And page 143 3. and fourth section: Therefore ....... from the first storage
element .... . And Next, the storage element for the ss phoneme..... .
I guess you can describe what you think writing storage element.
bjorn
[From Bill Powers (2005.05.23.1252 MDT)]
Bjorn Simonsen (2005.05.23,19:45 EST)-
Well, I misunderstood your B:CP page 142, below Figure 11.1: First, we need
to construct a storage element which can be turned on or of by input signals
and will stay in whatever state it was left".
Ah, I see. The "storage" is not actual storage of something inside the nerve cells, but storage of a logical state in the whole loop. The "off" state is the case where no impulses are travelling around and around in the loop; the "on" state is the case where some number of impulses is going around the loop. A single impulse at the input will turn the loop on, so you could say the recirculating impulse is "stored" in the loop. A brief inhibitory input can turn off all the circulating impulses.
This does not involve storing anything inside any one nerve cell.
Best,
Bill P.
[Bjorn Simonsen (2005.05.30,09:20 EST)]
Before I send my first "level 6" mail, I have a question about the results
from the experimental group in the "retroactive inhibition" experiment (B:CP
page 154).
They controlled events. First they controlled the Task A event. Then they
controlled the Task B event. And at last they tried to recall the Task A
event.
We know the result.
Will we in CSG explain the poor result on the recall Task A experiment with
a conflict between controlling Task A and Task B?
Bjorn
[From Bill Powers (2005.05.31.2049)]
Bjorn Simonsen (2005.05.30,09:20 EST) –
Before I send my first
“level 6” mail, I have a question about the results
from the experimental group in the “retroactive inhibition”
experiment (B:CP
page 154).
They controlled events. First they controlled the Task A event. Then
they
controlled the Task B event. And at last they tried to recall the Task
A
event.
We know the result.
Will we in CSG explain the poor result on the recall Task A experiment
with
a conflict between controlling Task A and Task B?
I don’t see how. It’s just a fact that this happens. I don’t know of any
theoretical reason for it to happen. The point of that story in B:CP
wasn’t that retroactive inhibitition tells us anything of theoretical
interest, but that it shows us that the experimenters were
perceiving a relationship between events: Event A occurred before
event B, and event B occurred before event C and after
event A. “Before” and “after” are names of
relationships. The test subjects as far as B:CP is concerned were not the
ones who showed the retroactive inhibition effect, but the experimenters
who were clearly perceiving a relationship between events. This section
is on perception of relationships.
I was being too clever, using an experiment to prove something that the
experimenters certainly did NOT have in mind to investigate. Whenever I
try tricks like that, people get confused about what I mean. I have
learned not to do that, in the last 30 years or so.
Best,
Bill P.
[From Bjorn Simonsen (2005.06.01,13:40 EST)]
From Bill Powers (2005.05.31.2049)
Bjorn Simonsen (2005.05.30,09:20 EST) --
Will we in CSG explain the poor result on the recall Task A experiment
with
a conflict between controlling Task A and Task B?
I don't see how. It's just a fact that this happens. I don't know of any
theoretical reason for it to happen.
I see I am not that well trained in PCT.
My thinking was:
When the subjects should demonstrate their Recall of Task A, I thought they
wished to recall the objects from Task A. They had a reference for that
recall.
We often control perceptions without being them conscious. (e.g.. our
walking when we talk about an interesting subject with the one who walks
next to us).
I thought the subject also had a reference for recalling objects from Task
B. (unconscious)
Two control systems trying to bring the same perceptual variable to two
different reference levels.
Conflict.
What I know now:
Don't think you know what a person is controlling without doing a test. When
you don't know what the person is controlling, don't say that he controls
what you think he controls.
Of course the subjects in the retroactive inhibition experiment all might
have had other references when they controlled their perceptions under the
experiment. Some of them references at a higher level than the experimenter.
I knew the retroactive inhibition experiment was unimportant. I now know it
still better.
bjorn