Levels of Perception

[From Bill Powers (2004.07.31.0802 MDT)]
I was looking at a picture from the rover Spirit (I give in) as it nears
the end of its climb to the top of a rock outcrop on West Spur in the
Columbia Hills of Mars. Suddenly I realized that I was attending
consciously to several levels of perception at the same time. The lowest
level was about the size of a pixel, and in fact I could see the fine
grid formed by the elements on the screen. In the full-screen picture, at
800 x 600, there were about 480,000 pixels visible, and I could see them
wherever I looked. They were patches of varying shades of gray, 16 levels
with the 4-bit coding that was used. Bright and dark – intensity. And
there were shadings as well, making surfaces, lines, edges, corners –
sensation level? And then, of course, there were rock configurations of
all sizes, from tiny pebbbles to medium sized shapes to whole outcrops,
with the distant horizon visible beyond the shoulder of the large
outcrop. Check it out:
http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/gallery/press/spirit/20040730a/2NN203EFF80CYL00P1746L000M1-A204R1.jpg
What hit me was that I was consciously observing perceptions
at these different levels. Clearly, there are far too many pixels in the
picture to make it all the way up to the cortex. I was attending, at the
intensity level, to the lowest-level maps that exist in the brain, not
cortical signals. At the sensation level (shading, edge, etc), there were
fewer elements to attend to, so it’s conceivable that they might be
perceived at a higher level in the brain. And the number of perceptions
of rocks, bumps, hollows, outcrops, and horizons was even smaller,
countable, so that might allow for an even higher level of processing in
the brain. Then, of course, there were the even higher-order perceptions,
such as “Hey, this is a picture from a camera on
Mars!”
It seems perfectly clear, today, that the brain is an interface between
awareness and the world outside the brain. The whole brain, not
just the higher regions of it. Awareness knows what the brain delivers to
it, and it knows this at every level of the nervous system. The interface
is three-dimensional, not a single flat layer like a TV screen. We see
consciously all the levels of perceptual signals at once, right there in
the “display,” from intensities to system concepts. This is why
the world looks to us the way it does. The reality and vividness of it
comes from the fact that we are directly aware of the lowest level of
neural signals where everything is drowned in detail – but superimposed
on that is the next level where sensations take on identities, and
superimposed on that are the groupings we call objects (in the visual
modality), which in turn underlie all the other levels of perception. And
they are all right there in the visual picture, not hidden somewhere
behind the eyes inside the head. All the levels are open to conscious
inspection all of the time, in the world that appears to
awareness.

Maybe this whole shebang exists as a package somewhere in the higher
levels of the brain, but it seems to me that there simply isn’t room for
it there. The whole brain is needed to explain experience at all the
levels, and this means that awareness is in contact with signals
everywhere in the brain.

This is actually a belated echo of a partial insight I had over 50 years
ago. It suddenly occurred to me back then some time that everything we
need to know about the brain, or at least everything we can understand
and experience about how it works, is right there in front of us all of
the time. The whole problem is to understand what we are looking at.
That’s when I understood what was wrong with the introspectionist
approach: they were looking for something subtle, hidden, mysterious,
hard to see. In fact the answer was in plain sight before their eyes and
filling every other kind of sensory field as well. To ignore that, while
trying to imagine what is going on inside the head, is to miss the entire
show.

So have a look at this magnificent picture, and see how many levels of
perception you can find in it. And it’s not even in color!

Best,

Bill P.

[From Bruce Gregory (2004.0731.1148)]

  Bill Powers (2004.07.31.0802 MDT)

This is actually a belated echo of a partial insight I had over 50
years ago. It suddenly occurred to me back then some time that
everything we need to know about the brain, or at least everything we
can understand and experience about how it works, is right there in
front of us all of the time. The whole problem is to understand what
we are looking at. That's when I understood what was wrong with the
introspectionist approach: they were looking for something subtle,
hidden, mysterious, hard to see. In fact the answer was in plain sight
before their eyes and filling every other kind of sensory field as
well. To ignore that, while trying to imagine what is going on inside
the head, is to miss the entire show.

For what it's worth, this is a view that I share. I think of the higher
levels of perception in terms of patterns isolated from lower levels in
hierarchy, but these lower levels always remain available to awareness.
I am not proposing a model, but it would not surprise me if we
eventually come to treat awareness as a universal field of the sort
described by the early Buddhists. The role played by neural systems is
then to provide patterns to awareness. The more complex the brain, the
more abstract the patterns it can be aware of (and manipulate).

Bruce Gregory

"Great Doubt: great awakening. Little Doubt: little awakening. No
Doubt: no awakening."

[From Bill Powers (2004.07.31.1023 MDT)]

Bruce Gregory (2004.0731.1148)--

For what it's worth, this is a view that I share. I think of the higher
levels of perception in terms of patterns isolated from lower levels in
hierarchy, but these lower levels always remain available to awareness.
I am not proposing a model, but it would not surprise me if we
eventually come to treat awareness as a universal field of the sort
described by the early Buddhists. The role played by neural systems is
then to provide patterns to awareness. The more complex the brain, the
more abstract the patterns it can be aware of (and manipulate).

I'd like to hear more about the "early Buddhists" if you have the time.
What was this universal field supposed to be? Did they think everyone was
part of the same universal field, or were people still separate, though
non-physical in the usual sense, observers?

Best,

Bill P.

···

Bruce Gregory

"Great Doubt: great awakening. Little Doubt: little awakening. No
Doubt: no awakening."

[From Bruce Gregory (2004.0731.1256)]

Bill Powers (2004.07.31.1023 MDT)

I'd like to hear more about the "early Buddhists" if you have the time.
What was this universal field supposed to be? Did they think everyone
was
part of the same universal field, or were people still separate, though
non-physical in the usual sense, observers?

The source here is _The Zen Teaching of Huang Po: On the Transmission
of Mind_ translated by John Blofeld. The document begins:

1. The Master said to me: All the Buddhas and all sentient beings are
nothing but the One Mind, beside which nothing exists. This Mind, which
is without beginning, is unborn and indestructible. it is not green nor
yellow, and has neither form nor appearance. It does not belong to the
categories of things which exist or do not exist, nor can it be thought
of in terms of old or new. It is neither long nor short, big nor small,
for it transcends all limits, measures, names, traces and comparisons.
It is that which you see before you--begin to reason about it and you
at once fall into error. It is like the boundless void which cannot be
fathomed or measured. The One Mind alone is the Buddha, and there is no
distinction between the Buddha and sentient beings, but that sentient
beings are attached to forms and so seek eternally for Buddhahood. By
their very seeking, they lose it, for that is using the Buddha to seek
the Buddha and using mind to grasp Mind. Even though they do their
utmost for a full aeon, they will not be able to attain it. They do not
know that, if they put a stop to conceptual thought and forget their
anxiety, the Buddha will appear before them, for this Mind is the
Buddha and the Buddha is all living things. It is not the less for
being manifested in ordinary beings, nor is it greater for being
manifested in the Buddhas.

Bruce Gregory

"Great Doubt: great awakening. Little Doubt: little awakening. No
Doubt: no awakening."

[From Bill Powers (2004.07.31.1124 MDT)]

Bruce Gregory (2004.0731.1256)--

The source here is _The Zen Teaching of Huang Po: On the Transmission
of Mind_ translated by John Blofeld. The document begins:

1. The Master said to me: All the Buddhas and all sentient beings are
nothing but the One Mind, beside which nothing exists.

That sounds more like a theory than an observation that one person can
make, even a Master.

This Mind, which is without beginning, is unborn and indestructible.

That's theory too, if we discount Masters having some supernatural grasp of
truth denied to the rest of us. How can anybody know what is without
beginning and indestructable?

it is not green nor yellow, and has neither form nor appearance. It does
not belong to the categories of things which exist or do not exist, nor
can it be thought of in terms of old or new. It is neither long nor
short, big nor small, for it transcends all limits, measures, names,
traces and comparisons.
It is that which you see before you--begin to reason about it and you
at once fall into error.

This sounds more like the way I think of the Observer, separate from the
characteristics of the learned hierarchy. In the last sentence, however, I
wouldn't call it "error" -- it's just that as soon as you start to describe
experience or reason about it, you're using the facilities of the
hierarchy, and are no longer simply Observing. You're using one perception
that is about other perceptions. From the Observer standpoint, perceptions
simply exist and are not about anything.

It is like the boundless void which cannot be fathomed or measured. The
One Mind alone is the Buddha, and there is no distinction between the
Buddha and sentient beings, but that sentient beings are attached to forms
and so seek eternally for Buddhahood. By their very seeking, they lose it,
for that is using the Buddha to seek the Buddha and using mind to grasp Mind.

Well, OK, but since I don't think we can know anything about boundless
voids or things that can't be fathomed or measured, to me this part is
simply a repetition of the previous part, saying that when you start
thinking about perceptions you are identifying with the hierarchy again
rather than being apart and observing its activities: using mind to grasp
Mind, whatever the capital means. I guess I capitalize the O in Observer to
distinguish this mode from the thinking/observing/analyzing mode.

Even though they do their utmost for a full aeon, they will not be able
to attain it. They do not know that, if they put a stop to conceptual
thought and forget their anxiety, the Buddha will appear before them, for
this Mind is the Buddha and the Buddha is all living things. It is not
the less for
being manifested in ordinary beings, nor is it greater for being
manifested in the Buddhas.

Don't know what that means. It's not that you put a stop to conceptual
thought, you just stop identifying with it. That's basically what they
teach in Transcendental Meditation -- don't try to turn off the thoughts,
just step back and observe them, let them go on without you. I went through
that training (one afternoon) and found the experience interesting.

I don't really go for this stuff about Buddhas vs ordinary folk, or
Buddhahood being some elevated state above ordinary humanity. I guess that
agrees more or less with the above. There's nothing here that one person
can't do or see just as well as another. Dressing it up in a religious
magical framework makes it less attainable to most people, for they think
you have to be something special to experience it, and I can tell you that
this is not the case. I have always liked the basic ideas expressed here,
which I have seen before though not this particular one, but I'm put off by
the window-dressing that goes with it. Too much hype. I think the basic
phenomenon is fascinating and mysterious enough as it is, and doesn't need
pumping up to make it more interesting.

I suppose that means that I must have missed Enlightenment.

Best,

Bill P.

[From Bruce Gregory (2004.0731.1540)]

Bill Powers (2004.07.31.1124 MDT)

I think of Huang Po as describing his experience in the language of the
tradition in which he was immersed. In this sense, he is making claims
that one is free--nay, obligated--to verify for oneself--very much in
the spirit of the Buddha. That seems to me to be what you have done.

I suppose that means that I must have missed Enlightenment.

That seems to me to be an unwarranted conclusion.

Bruce Gregory

"Great Doubt: great awakening. Little Doubt: little awakening. No
Doubt: no awakening."

[From David Goldstein (2004.08.01.0654 DST0]

[About Bill Powers (2004.07.31.0802 MDT)]

Bill,

What a beautiful picture!

“The brain as an interface between awareness and the world” , what an interesting idea!

Awareness must be a result of brain functioning. When one is under general anesthesia, one is not aware.

Only when one wakes up from general anesthesia does one realize that one has no memory of anything that happened during the surgery. There is a realization that one was alive during this time but there was no awareness during this time.

When does awareness start? When does awareness end? Does it change during normal life and during different disease conditions?

PCT yours,

David

David M. Goldstein, Ph.D.

Hi, David –

Awareness
must be a result of brain functioning.

“Must be?”

When
one is under general anesthesia, one is not aware.

Of anything. When you turn off the lights, have you gone blind?

Only when
one wakes up from general anesthesia does one realize that one has no
memory of anything that happened during the
surgery.

The brain wakes up. Realizing is a brain function. Memory is a brain
function. “One” is a brain function.

There
is a realization that one was alive during this time but there was no
awareness during this time.

No memory of anything. If you can’t remember being aware, does that mean
you weren’t aware?

When does
awareness start? When does awareness end? Does it change during normal
life and during different disease conditions?

What are your answers?

Bill

Hello Bill,

I say that awareness must be a result of brain functioning because I can’t think of an alternative which is scientifically based.

When the lights are turned off, I know that I haven’t gone blind if I know that someone turned off the lights. Perhaps the experience of going blind is different than the experience of lights being turned off. I know that the light energy in the room is necessary condition for my experiences of seeing. When my brain is “turned off” by general anesthesia, I don’t know anything. All my experiences stop.

The story of HM, whose ability to convert experiences into a long-term recording of some kind, suggests that if we don’t remember an experience than we act as though we never had the experience. If HM were asked immediately, whether the person in front of him was there a few minutes ago, he would probably say yes. If HM was asked whether he every saw the person before, he would probably say no. HM is aware at the moment. It would be interesting to hide the person in a container and let HM watch the hiding. (Remember Piaget’s object constancey studies with infants?). Would HM, look for the person? I suppose the answer might depend on how long we wait before we ask him to find the person. The person would be confonted with several possible containers.

I am not sure when awareness starts. It probably depends on what one accepts as evidence that a person is aware. There are different kinds of comas. I will review the discussions about them. This seems relevant.

I do believe that awareness ends with death. I like the story of life after death but I can’t say that I have experienced anything which convinces me that it is so. I wish it were true because then I might have contact with people I have known and loved who have died.

I am not sure about developmental changes in awareness. Somehow I think of awareness as such a basic thing that I don’t think it changes much with age. As a person ages and his/her brain changes, awareness may change in some ways.

PCT yours,

David

David M. Goldstein, Ph.D.

···

----- Original Message -----

From:
Bill Powers

To: CSGNET@listserv.uiuc.edu

Sent: Sunday, August 01, 2004 11:34 AM

Subject: Re: Levels of Perception

Hi, David –

Awareness must be a result of brain functioning.

“Must be?”

 When one is under general anesthesia, one is not aware. 

Of anything. When you turn off the lights, have you gone blind?

Only when one wakes up from general anesthesia does one realize that one has no memory of anything that happened during the surgery.

The brain wakes up. Realizing is a brain function. Memory is a brain function. “One” is a brain function.

 There is a realization that one was alive during this time but there was no awareness during this time.

No memory of anything. If you can’t remember being aware, does that mean you weren’t aware?

When does awareness start? When does awareness end? Does it change during normal life and during different disease conditions?

What are your answers?

Bill

[From Bill Powers (2004.08.02.0342 MDT)]

David Goldstein (2004.08.01) –

I say
that awareness must be a result of brain functioning because I can’t
think of an alternative which is scientifically
based.

But is it scientific to offer an explanation without any evidence? I say
that we don’t know the nature of awareness, period. No possibilities have
been either ruled out or supported, to my knowledge.

When the
lights are turned off, I know that I haven’t gone blind if I know that
someone turned off the lights. Perhaps the experience of going blind is
different than the experience of lights being turned off. I know
that the light energy in the room is necessary condition for my
experiences of seeing. When my brain is “turned off” by general
anesthesia, I don’t know anything. All my experiences
stop.

My point was that this does not prove that awareness is absent: it is
still possible that awareness still functions, but there is nothing to be
aware of since the link to the brain has ceased to function.

I am not
sure when awareness starts. It probably depends on what one accepts as
evidence that a person is aware. There are different kinds of comas. I
will review the discussions about them. This seems
relevant.

The only evidence we have that a person is aware is that each of us is
aware, and knows it. There is no evidence that any other person is aware.
Each of us examines this phenomenon privately, and then we talk to each
other about it, comparing experiences. But since this has to be done
through the medium of brain functions and physical communication (see
Taylor’s Layered Protocol Theory), it would seem that normal scientific
procedures can’t be carried out. But on closer inspection, scientific
procedures always have to depend on brain functions and communication:
“It seems to me that there is a track in the cloud chamber: what
does it seem to you that you see?” Of course we boldly speak as if
what one person sees, everyone sees, an assumption we can’t prove. We try
to build instruments that will do the seeing for us, and even the
analyzing. But in the end, someone has to say to another person,
“What I experience is this. Do you experience anything that
you would describe like that?”

I do
believe that awareness ends with death. I like the story of life after
death but I can’t say that I have experienced anything which convinces me
that it is so. I wish it were true because then I might have contact with
people I have known and loved who have died.

But neither view can be substantiated by any scientific procedure. All
you can do is believe one way or the other for no reason, or say “I
don’t know.”

I am not
sure about developmental changes in awareness. Somehow I think of
awareness as such a basic thing that I don’t think it changes much with
age. As a person ages and his/her brain changes, awareness may change in
some ways.

In my life, the experience of being aware has not changed as far as I can
tell. How about you? There is evidence that memory is a brain function,
so this impression doesn’t prove anything. In another sense, awareness is
timeless: the only real moment is NOW, and we are aware in it as
experience changes in the manner we call “the passage of time.”
That is the best I can make my brain do with decribing changes, or lack
of changes, in awareness itself.

Is this something like the way your experience appears to you? (to put it
in the correct but didactic way)?

Best,

Bill P.

Hi,

This my first post. I have been slowly working my way through Bill Powers books and I wonder if somebody can point me towards the explanation (is there a separate paper by Bill?) as to why in Behaviour: The Control of Perception there are 9 levels whereas in Making Sense of Behaviour there are 11 Levels.

Cheers

Tim Coomb

Hi Timothy,

Glad to hear that you're working your way through B:CP.

Sorting out levels of perception, or "orders" as he calls them in B:CP, was a project that Bill Powers continued to work at, mainly by introspection, for several decades. His earliest publication on PCT, the 1960 two-part article on "A General Feedback Model of Human Behavior" in Perceptual and Motor Skills, describes only six orders of perception. By 1973, he had expanded his list to nine orders, and by the time of the 1989 publication of An Introduction to Modern Psychology (with Dick Robertson), his list was up to 11.

Bill always emphasized that the his lists of orders of perception were preliminary (awaiting further research) and perhaps partial, and that the important point was the hierarchical nature of the brain's architecture, not the specific levels of perception he described.

You'll notice, if you compare the B:CP list to the 11 levels in the Making Sense book, that he has used the name "sequences" for a higher level (after categories and before programs) and renamed level 5 as "events," which is actually an alternative name that he gives for that level in B:CP, if I'm remembering correctly. (I don't have the book in front of me today.)

Anyway, I'd take Bill's advice and not get too hung up on the specifics of levels, as long as you understand the idea of the hierarchical organization of the brain.

My best,

Kent

···

On Dec 23, 2013, at 3:49 AM, COOMB TIMOTHY wrote:

Hi,

This my first post. I have been slowly working my way through Bill Powers books and I wonder if somebody can point me towards the explanation (is there a separate paper by Bill?) as to why in Behaviour: The Control of Perception there are 9 levels whereas in Making Sense of Behaviour there are 11 Levels.

Cheers

Tim Coomb

Kent,
Many thanks for your detailed reply, its much appreciated.

Seasons greetings

Tim

···

On 23 December 2013 20:39, McClelland, Kent MCCLEL@grinnell.edu wrote:

Hi Timothy,

Glad to hear that you’re working your way through B:CP.

Sorting out levels of perception, or “orders” as he calls them in B:CP, was a project that Bill Powers continued to work at, mainly by introspection, for several decades. His earliest publication on PCT, the 1960 two-part article on “A General Feedback Model of Human Behavior” in Perceptual and Motor Skills, describes only six orders of perception. By 1973, he had expanded his list to nine orders, and by the time of the 1989 publication of An Introduction to Modern Psychology (with Dick Robertson), his list was up to 11.

Bill always emphasized that the his lists of orders of perception were preliminary (awaiting further research) and perhaps partial, and that the important point was the hierarchical nature of the brain’s architecture, not the specific levels of perception he described.

You’ll notice, if you compare the B:CP list to the 11 levels in the Making Sense book, that he has used the name “sequences” for a higher level (after categories and before programs) and renamed level 5 as “events,” which is actually an alternative name that he gives for that level in B:CP, if I’m remembering correctly. (I don’t have the book in front of me today.)

Anyway, I’d take Bill’s advice and not get too hung up on the specifics of levels, as long as you understand the idea of the hierarchical organization of the brain.

My best,

Kent

On Dec 23, 2013, at 3:49 AM, COOMB TIMOTHY wrote:

Hi,

This my first post. I have been slowly working my way through Bill Powers books and I wonder if somebody can point me towards the explanation (is there a separate paper by Bill?) as to why in Behaviour: The Control of Perception there are 9 levels whereas in Making Sense of Behaviour there are 11 Levels.

Cheers

Tim Coomb