Levels of control (was Re: Mirror Neurons ? )

CSGnet Archive CSG2005
1

[From Rick Marken (2005.10.18.1310)]

Marc Abrams (2005.10.17.1536)

Are neurons at different levels somehow differentiatable? That is, can
we tell the difference between a 'category' neuron and a 'relationship'
neuron?

I believe the answer is yes. The Nobel Prize winning work of Hubel and
Weisel on receptive fields of neurons in the optic nerve and cortex shows
how afferent neurons can be distinguished in terms of what they perceive. It
turns out that what the signals carried by individuals neurons represent
(their receptive fields) becomes progressively more complex as you move from
neurons in the optic nerve to neurons in the occipital lobe. The receptive
fields of neurons closer of the periphery (toward the retina) tend to be
simpler than those of neurons higher up (toward the cortex). Moreover, the
receptive fields of higher level neurons seem to be built up from the
receptive fields of lower level neurons. For example, a lower level neuron
might have a receptive field that represents the orientation of a line (a
configuration in PCT terms); a higher level neuron might have a receptive
field (called hypercomplex) that represents line movement (a transition in
PCT terms).

What data do we have to support this notion of dependency?

The work on receptive field's is one piece of evidence; the perceptions of
higher level neurons (hypercomplex receptive fields) seem to depend on (in
the sense of being constructed from) the perceptions of lower level neurons.
The perception of a moving line is dependent on the perception of a line,
for example

Other evidence for this dependency is phenomenological. You can't perceive
configurations, for example, without perceiving intensity or sensation but
you can perceive intensities and sensations that without perceiving a
configuration.

A model is useful if it can support empirical data. To date we have not been
able to get any data on the existence of any levels.

Data on the existence of levels come from some of Bill's "Portable
Demonstrator" examples (described in B:CP, I believe). Evidence of levels
also comes from relative reaction time studies (where the reaction time of
the lower level system is faster and nested within the reaction time of the
higher level systems. I have two two demonstrations on the net that provide
data relevant to the existence of hierarchical levels of control: the
"Levels of control" demo at

http://www.mindreadings.com/ControlDemo/Levels.html

and the "Hierarchy of perception and control" demo at

http://www.mindreadings.com/ControlDemo/HP.html).

My question; What justifies the need for 'levels'.

Data that comes from the neurophysiological, phenomenological and behavioral
sources described above.

Regards

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.

2

From [Marc Abrams (2005.10.18.1725)]

Thanks Rick, I don’t agree with half this stuff but I do appreciate your answers. At least I have some understanding of where you are coming from

with all of this.

In a message dated 10/18/2005 4:18:19 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, marken@MINDREADINGS.COM writes:

[From Rick Marken (2005.10.18.1310)]

Marc Abrams (2005.10.17.1536)

Are neurons at different levels somehow differentiatable? That is, can
we tell the difference between a ‘category’ neuron and a ‘relationship’
neuron?

I believe the answer is yes. The Nobel Prize winning work of Hubel and
Weisel on receptive fields of neurons in the optic nerve and cortex shows
how afferent neurons can be distinguished in terms of what they perceive. It
turns out that what the signals carried by individuals neurons represent
(their receptive fields) becomes progressively more complex as you move from
neurons in the optic nerve to neurons in the occipital lobe. The receptive
fields of neurons closer of the periphery (toward the retina) tend to be
simpler than those of neurons higher up (toward the cortex). Moreover, the
receptive fields of higher level neurons seem to be built up from the
receptive fields of lower level neurons. For example, a lower level neuron
might have a receptive field that represents the orientation of a line (a
configuration in PCT terms); a higher level neuron might have a receptive
field (called hypercomplex) that represents line movement (a transition in
PCT terms).
Taken this to be true, a few additional questions;

What about blind people? They still “perceive” shapes, lines, and colors. How is this accomplished without the benefit of the optic nerve?

Some can even draw in perspective, how? What kind of ‘levels’ do they have and why are they different?

What about our other senses? Do the neurons change for our hearing or do different inner ear hairs oscillate at different speeds? Do deaf folks ‘hear’ as well as blind people ‘see’?

Regards,

Marc

3

Rick Marken wrote:

[From Rick Marken (2005.10.18.)

Hey, this is good stuff, Rick. I had forgotten about Hubel and Weisel

Best,

Dick R

···

http://www.mindreadings.com/ControlDemo/Levels.htmlhttp://www.mindreadings.com/ControlDemo/HP.html

4

[From Rick Marken (2005.10.18.1555)]

Dick Robertson wrote:

Hey, this is good stuff, Rick. I had forgotten about Hubel and Weisel

Thanks Dick. I only reply to Marc in the hope that my replies might be of
interest to others. So your note is particularly refreshing. But as Bill
noted, this is a risky business. It's kind of like bullfighting (and just
as stupid, really): it is done, not to teach the bull anything, but to show
the audience something. But I think I'll retire from the Corrida again for a
while;-)

Hasta luego

Ricardo

···

---
--
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.

5

[From Dag Forssell (2005.10.18 16:35 PST}]

[Rick Marken (2005.10.18.1555)]

I only reply to Marc in the hope that my replies might be of

interest to others. It’s kind of like bullfighting (and just

as stupid, really): it is done, not to teach the bull anything, but to show

the audience something.

As you say, I think this is indeed stupid. The concept has been spelled out here before, and was probably just as stupid then.

What I hear you saying in plain language is that you do not respect your fellow man as a human being. I find this offensive.

I think you are the only participant on CSGnet who takes this tack deliberately, and I think it has created gobs of animosity over many years.

Have you managed to teach anything in the process? Really?

If you are going to post at all, please consider your purpose with care.

Best, Dag

6

From [Marc Abrams (2005.10.18.1947)

In a message dated 10/18/2005 7:38:32 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, csgarchive@PCTRESOURCES.COM writes:

[From Dag Forssell (2005.10.18 16:35 PST}]
Dag, before I take Bryan’s advice I would say that you are a bit off the mark by singling out Rick in this.

He, like always, simply played his role and followed the lead of Bill Powers.

Yes, Rick has no respect for others , but then again he has, in my opinion a wonderful master and idol in Bill Powers.

They happen to play off of one another very well, but I share your sadness.

I was not offended. I expected it and as I said, my little experiment worked out wonderful and Rick helped me tremendously by having a ‘dialogue’ with me, as twisted and convoluted as it turned out.

I accomplished what I set out to do and now it is time for me to move on again. Perhaps there will be a reason for me to return in the future.

Thank you for your support.

BTW, I really think you need to look at the absence of the control of input versus the control of output in the opening of the paper. You say the primary difference is in an internal reference level only.

Regards,

Marc

···

[Rick Marken (2005.10.18.1555)]

I only reply to Marc in the hope that my replies might be of
interest to others. It’s kind of like bullfighting (and just
as stupid, really): it is done, not to teach the bull anything, but to show
the audience something.

As you say, I think this is indeed stupid. The concept has been
spelled out here before, and was probably just as stupid then.

What I hear you saying in plain language is that you do not respect
your fellow man as a human being. I find this offensive.

I think you are the only participant on CSGnet who takes this tack
deliberately, and I think it has created gobs of animosity over many years.

Have you managed to teach anything in the process? Really?

If you are going to post at all, please consider your purpose with care.

Best, Dag

7

[From Dag Forssell (2005.10.18 17:20 PST}]

[Marc Abrams (2005.10.18.1947)

No Marc, I think Bill has the patience of Job, though you among others try it to the limit and beyond. I can't remember seeing him post other than to the recipient, though others certainly read and benefit.

BTW, I really think you need to look at the absence of the control of input versus the control of output in the opening of the paper. You say the primary difference is in an internal reference level only.

I see what you say. I took it as a starting point. I shall change to "One thing" from "The thing". Thanks.

Dag

8

From [Marc Abrams (2005.10.18.2031)

In a message dated 10/18/2005 8:27:42 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, team@FORSSELLTRANS.COM writes:

[From Dag Forssell (2005.10.18 17:20 PST}]

[Marc Abrams (2005.10.18.1947)

No Marc, I think Bill has the patience of Job,
Maybe Dag, but he has no respect for anyone. If you think sitting there and biting your lip because you think some guy is a jackass is respect, you and I use different dictionaries.

Ask Tom Bourbon about the respect he gets from Bill.

though you among
others try it to the limit and beyond.
Yes, it can be very trying when you are dealing with someone who does not think the world revolves around either you or your theories.

Bill could stop Rick in his tracks with one ten minute phone call but he won’t and never will.

I can’t remember seeing him post other than to the recipient, though others certainly read and benefit.
Really? So if he had something to say about my logic why not come to the source? Was Bill interested in resolving a logic problem or trying to stick it to me?

Are you that blind Dag?

But that is not all. Rick than comes on with his “Thanks Bill, I needed that routine”.

Something you might expect from Frick and Frack :slight_smile:

Like I suckered him into responding to me six times. :slight_smile:

If you believe that I got a couple of bridges here in NYC that just went on sale. :slight_smile:

Dag, I love ya, but you are making a huge mistake in thinking Rick orchestrates this all on his own.

BTW, I really think you need to look at the absence of the control
of input versus the control of output in the opening of the paper.
You say the primary difference is in an internal reference level only.

I see what you say. I took it as a starting point. I shall change to
“One thing” from “The thing”. Thanks.
Your very welcome, glad I was able to contribute.

Regards,

Marc

9

[From RIck Marken (2005.10.18.1810)]

Dag Forssell (2005.10.18 16:35 PST)--

Rick Marken (2005.10.18.1555)--

I only reply to Marc in the hope that my replies might be of
interest to others. <snip> It's kind of like bullfighting (and just
as stupid, really): it is done, not to teach the bull anything, but to show
the audience something.

As you say, I think this is indeed stupid. The concept has been spelled out here before, and was probably just as stupid then.

What concept is that?

What I hear you saying in plain language is that you do not respect your fellow man as a human being. I find this offensive.

When did I say I don't respect Marc as a human being? I certainly have no respect for Marc's ideas or his way of presenting them. But I respect Marc as a human being, inasmuch as I know he is a human being and I respect that fact.

I think you are the only participant on CSGnet who takes this tack deliberately, and I think it has created gobs of animosity over many years.

What tack is that? What animosity? I know that you and some others have had animosity towards me but that's only because you happened to disagree with me (and Bill) about some stuff, mainly about RTP.

Have you managed to teach anything in the process? Really?

Yes, I think so. Have you managed to learn anything in the process?

If you are going to post at all, please consider your purpose with care.

As I said, I did consider my purpose with care. My purpose in replying to Marc was 1) to explain what a zero sum game is and why the economy is a zero sum game and 2) to describe some of the evidence for hierarchical levels of perception and control. Both of there explanations were motivated by things mentioned in Marc's posts. Based on previous interactions with Marc, I didn't expect him to be swayed by or even take seriously much of what I was saying. As I said, I did it for the sake of others who might be interested.

I didn't insult Marc or call him names. Indeed, I treated his posts with respect inasmuch as I responded to them seriously and with what I thought was a reasonable degree of intellectual rigor. Marc responded to my posts by insulting me (saying I don't know anything about economics, for example) and attributing ideas to me that I had not expressed. I tried to ignore this, knowing that that's just Marc going off. But I succumbed to my desire to "set the record straight" by writing one post, asking only that Marc not attribute ideas to me that I did not advocate. This was the response to the Siren call that Bill was pointing out in his post. Just by writing this one little self-defense I had succumbed to the conflict; that's the risk of using Marc's posts as a basis for serious discussion.

The alternative to my approach is to completely ignore Marc and simply not discuss the topics he brings up. This is the strategy Bill uses and it's certainly the best way to avoid conflict. But I don't see it as any more respectful towards Marc than my approach, which is to try to discuss the occasionally interesting topics raised by Marc's posts while trying not to respond to Marc's subsequent baiting.

Best

Rick

···

---
Richard S. Marken
marken@mindreadings.com
Home 310 474-0313
Cell 310 729-1400

10

From [Marc Abrams (2005.10.18.2140)]

In a message dated 10/18/2005 9:10:28 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, marken@MINDREADINGS.COM writes:

[From RIck Marken (2005.10.18.1810)]
Dag,

Ignore this post, it is not worth getting bothered about. You can’t ask a blind man too see.

Regards,

Marc

11

[From
Bjorn Simonsen (2005.10.19,09:50 EuST)]

From Rick
Marken (2005.10.18.1310)

Marc Abrams (2005.10.17.1536)

Are
neurons at different levels somehow differentiatable? That is, can

we
tell the difference between a ‘category’ neuron and a ‘relationship’

neuron?

I
believe the answer is yes. The Nobel
Prize winning work of Hubel and

Weisel
on receptive fields of neurons in the optic nerve and cortex shows

how
afferent neurons can be distinguished in terms of what they perceive.

Also I
believe the answer is yes. I will explain it differently.

The brain
has also a chemical composition. In the synapses, transmitters pass the synapse
and react with receptors before an impulse comes into being in the next neuron.

There are
different transmitters (acetylcholine, enkephalin, endorphin, dynorphin and
more. There are also different receptors.

The different
transmitters and receptors have different properties.

I am not
able to tell what differences there are where.

But the
transmitters and the attractors make an impulse in the next neurone. And I
think some receptors contribute to a signal or not to a signal in the next
neurone.

Bjorn

12

From [Marc Abrams (2005.10.19.0751)]

In a message dated 10/19/2005 4:00:42 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, bsimonsen@C2I.NET writes:

[From Bjorn Simonsen (2005.10.19,09:50 EuST)]

From Rick Marken (2005.10.18.1310)

Marc Abrams (2005.10.17.1536)

Are neurons at different levels somehow differentiatable? That is, can

we tell the difference between a ‘category’ neuron and a ‘relationship’

neuron?

I believe the answer is yes. The Nobel Prize winning work of Hubel and

Weisel on receptive fields of neurons in the optic nerve and cortex shows

how afferent neurons can be distinguished in terms of what they perceive.

Also I believe the answer is yes. I will explain it differently.

Be careful about what you are agreeing to here. :wink: I did not ask if there was a difference in the kinds of neurons present. Not only are there differences among neurons but we are first beginning to realize that glia cells which out number neurons 10 to 1 are not just ‘supporting’ cells to the neurons.

I asked if the differences could be attributed specifically to ‘levels’. Or said a bit differently. can you tell the type of level it is by the type of neurons involved

Rick’s ‘evidence’ was some work done by Hubbell, unfortunately what Rick wound up citing was a mathematical and not a physiological example. Hypercomplex numbers are used in the study of visual fields, and so, like his spreadsheet models, may or may not have anything to do with humans.

With Rick making this claim;

“a higher level neuron might have a receptive
field (called hypercomplex) that represents line movement (a transition in
PCT terms).”

Is akin to making the claim that cognition can be represented by chaos theory. Is it true? Maybe, but that is not an answer to my question.

The brain has also a chemical composition. In the synapses, transmitters pass the synapse and react with receptors before an impulse comes into being in the next neuron.

There are different transmitters (acetylcholine, enkephalin, endorphin, dynorphin and more. There are also different receptors.

Ok, so? What does this have to do with my questions? Is ACT ‘categorical’ for example?

The different transmitters and receptors have different properties.

Yes, and again I ask, what does this have to do with my question? Are you implying here that the various levels can be determined by receptor properties?

I am not able to tell what differences there are where.

Yes Bjorn, and I don’t think anyone else can either at this point.

But the transmitters and the attractors make an impulse in the next neurone. And I think some receptors contribute to a signal or not to a signal in the next neurone.

We know that there are inhibitory and excitatory neurons, and from a controlling perspective this makes sense , but can we define levels according to the inhibitory properties? Because what you are talking about here are patterns, and if so what additional value does levels bring to pattern generation in your estimation?

Regards,

Marc