[Martin Taylor 980201 13:40]
Timothy Perper 980201 13:56 (according to my header)
Among many other postings, I read Martin Taylor's editorial about PCT. He
exemplified control and servo mechanisms by describing how a gun is aimed,
without doubt a useful example. But it made me ponder something. Could
that editorial be written if, instead of firearms, one were discussing
love?
Interesting question. I used the gun example in the editorial for several
different reasons: (1) it made explicit the idea of a "target",(2) it allowed
me to illustrate the multilevel nature of control in a way that is not
so obvious (to me) in the case of a car, and (3) it allowed the concept of
reorganization executed by a system with objectives outside the perceptual
hierarchy to be made obvious.
This latter, I think, is where "love" comes in. The prime requirement for
the existence of any organism is that it had parents who had sex (except
for some whose ancestor simply divided:-), and those parents would not have
existed had their parents not had sex, and.... If we did not come from
ancestors who had intrinsic variables that included something to do with
getting together with the opposite sex at a time when it might be productive
to do so, we would not be here.
It is probably unusual in humans, and unlikely in other species, that the
perceptual control behaviours related to love are in support of a high
level _perceptual_ control for imagined future children. But intrinsic
variables exist and have reference levels because they have, in evolutionary
terms, been successful in keeping the ancestors alive and propagating. So
it seems highly likely that _all_ sexual organisms have intrinsic variables
that relate to reorganizing the perceptual control hierarchy in such a
way that perceptions come to exist with reference values that lead to
sexual activity.
If control of an intrinsic variable is lurking in the background, then
so is reorganization. So a speculative answer to your question is that
"love" and the excalation of which you speak is an aspect of reorganization
associated with some intrinsic variable to do with propagation of the
species. Reorganization seems often to be associated with emotion.
Whether the reorganization is occurring during the "excalation" or whether
the whole sequence happens because the appearance of a desirable partner
brings an existing part of the hierarchy within the range of Marken's
"Universal Error Function" isn't obvious. To hazard an opinion on that
would be even more speculative than what I've said so far:-0
Sorry if the gun example seemed sterile as well as militaristic.
I think I must edit the editorial to say a bit more about changing targets.
···
-----------------
Dag Forssell (980201 1830)
Perceptions don't necessarily correspond to anything in the outside world.
For most of the things we consider human, they do not. Where we think they
do, we can never be sure.
I take your point. The paragraph in question was meant to do two things.
Firstly it was intended to ensure that people would read the issue without
thinking of "perception" as "what I know I see," but would take it as a
signal pure and simple, thus allowing them to apply the same concepts to
engineered and biological control systems. Secondly it was intended to
show that everything we get from the world upon which our control systems
act is obtained by the effect that physical variables have on internal
quantities. And _that_ is true.
What you are pointing out is what I have pointed out elsewhere, and Bill P
has pointed out many times--one cannot define a present set of physical
variables that specify a present perception, except in the simplest cases.
History matters, and current context matters. The present sensory variables
have their internal effects only in relation with what has gone before
and what else is going on now. If the paragraph might lead a reader to
think otherwise, it will have to be edited.
Thanks for the comments.
Martin