<Bob Clark (940413.1508 EST)>
Bill Powers (940408.0945 MDT)Subject: Big Picture
Referring to Bob Clark [(940407.1655)Subject:TEMPORAL VBLS - RKC],
you write:
Well, you've covered just about every way in which time has been
mentioned. I'm a bit lost, however -- why were we going into this
question?
The post you refer to above was an attempt to support my assertion
that time and temporal variables can be both perceived and
controlled. There had been some uncertainty expressed about this
point.
It seems to me that the well-nigh universal usage of these terms and
concepts in all sorts of situations by all kinds of people serves to
strongly support the conclusion that they can be both perceived and
controlled.
A great many discussions treat time and temporal variables rather
casually, with little recognition of their critical importance in
many human affairs.
TEMPORAL VARIABLES APPLIED
From a different standpoint, I have proposed combining temporal
variables with lower levels of the hierarchy. This would define
another level of the hierarchy: the level of "mechanical skills."
Such a level would fit nicely between the levels dealing exclusively
with inanimate objects and those suitable for interactions among
living beings.
Many interesting observations can develop from this modification of
the hierarchy.
Regards, Bob Clark
<Martin Taylor 940413 16:00>
<Bob Clark (940413.1508 EST)>
Bob, I agree with you that time can be a controllable perception in
a variety of ways. I'm not sure whether you think it is directly
sensed, or as Bill P. says if I intepret him aright, a consequence
of event sequences, some of which might be internally generated. There
are lots of free-running or externally synchronized oscillators on
all sorts of time-scales in the body, which could generate the sensory
signals into Perceptual Input Functions whose output signals we interpret
as "time." If such things exist, then "time" can be a label for a range
of different perceptual signals, such as you mentioned, without our being
able to sense "physical" time. And, as you propose, those "time" perceptual
signals could very well be sensory inputs to the Perceptual Input Functions
of other ECSs.
Does this fit with the way you are thinking?
Also, I wish you would expand a little on the idea that there are
different "levels" for dealing with inanimate objects and for dealing
with human beings. If I remember, the last time you presented this
notion, you had an unresolved argument about it with Bill P. As my
understanding of PCT has developed, I find it more and more difficult
to imagine any difference among levels suited for dealing with other
controllers and levels for dealing with non-controller perceptions. I
see differences in the actual perceptual signals that might be involved
(by which I mean form and parameterization of PIFs). But I do not see
a difference of levels, and even less a split of levels, between which
you could put "mechanical skills."
From a different standpoint, I have proposed combining temporal
variables with lower levels of the hierarchy. This would define
another level of the hierarchy: the level of "mechanical skills."
Wouldn't temporal variables naturally fit in all of the non-static levels?
What characteristic kinds of perception would be controlled in a
"mechanical skills" level?
Martin