[From Bjorn Simonsen (2005(05.31,09:55 EST)]
I refer to my Re: Mol [From Bjorn Simonsen (2005.01.12, 12:25 EST)]
Are these comments about level 6, the Relationship level, adequate? Can
anyone help me with my question marks? Are there other questions/comments
about level 6?
The Basis for Bill's reasoning towards the level above the event level was a
"retroactive inhibition" experiment.
After reading this chapter it is obvious to me that the subjects who
participated in the experiment controlled their perceptions at a lower level
than the experimenter. I guess the experimenter had a null hypothesis saying
(e.g.) "There is no difference between the results from the experimental
group and the control group".
He was controlling the invariants between the results from the experimental
group and the control group. We say he controlled invariants between events,
between transitions, between configurations or between sensations. Bill call
this control level the level of relationships.
I really had problems trying to understand the experiments done by Bruner,
Goodnow and Austin. In Norway I learned about Jerome S. Bruner as the "hero"
who should fight back the Russian advance in mathematics and physics after
their Sputnik. I remember the conference at Woods Hole on Cape Cod in 1959.
I have not studied their "A study of Thinking" and I am not sure I will. But
I will explain how I understand Bill's account in chapter 13 in this and a
later mail. May I start with two questions?
Is it correct to say that if there are one or more sensations,
configurations, transitions and/or events in two perceptions perceived at
different time, then there is a relationship between the perceptions?
Is this also the definition on concept relationship?
bjorn
[From Bill Powers (2005.05.31.2059 MDT)]
Bjorn Simonsen (2005(05.31,09:55 EST)] –
Are these comments about level 6, the Relationship level,
adequate? Can
anyone help me with my question
marks? Are there other questions/comments
about level 6?
The Basis for Bill’s reasoning towards the level above the event level
was a
“retroactive inhibition” experiment.
See? That’s what I get for trying to be a wise guy. In fact, the
retroactive inhibition experiment was picked only because it showed that
some people (the experimenters, not the subjects) were perceiving a
relationship between events. I could have used any example of people
talking about “before” and “after” relationships.
Retroactive inhibition has nothing whatsoever to do with my reasoning in
finding the relationship. It was just an example of people speaking about
relationships. The way I introduced the retroactive inhibition experiment
was supposed to set the reader up for a surprise, when he or she
discovered that I wasn’t interested in the experiment itself, but only in
what the experimenters were perceiving. I gave a little guidance at the
top of page 155, where I pointed out that we would never see the next
level of perception by looking at any number of experiments of this kind.
The second full paragraph begins, "The common factor is not in the
experiments but in the experimenter." I suppose what I had in mind was to give the reader a sort of
going-up-a-level experience, when the reader’s attention shifts from the
foreground to the background of what is being discussed. That’s the sort
of thing I kept experiencing as I tried to discover more levels. The next
level was always a surprise, and I tried to recreate that surprise for
the reader.
I was also playing mind games and showing off.
Best,
Bill P.
[From Bjorn Simonsen (2005.06.01,14:55 EST)]
From Bill Powers (2005.05.31.2059 MDT)
Thank you for your answer.
I have spent some time analyzing Bruner. Goodnow and Austin's experiment
with the concept experiment. Also here I presupposed that the subjects had
references at levels below the reference level and sometimes on the
reference level.
Of course it is uninteresting to speculate on which references the subject
had when they formulated their concepts.
The central point is that the experimenter controlled his perceptions at the
relationships level.
I think the relationships level is very often commented (maybe always) on
false premises for everyday use.
Commentators, scientists and journalists explain why the French said "no".
Commentators, scientists and journalists explain why the interest will rise.
Commentators, scientists and journalists explain why it is dangerous with
too much advertising.
Commentators, scientists and journalists explain why we shall not eat
potatoes.
etc.
They don't tell about the subjects they talk about, they tell about the way
they control their own perceptions often at the relationships level
Is this too severe?
bjorn