Re: Necker Cube (was Zen and the Art of
PCT)
[Martin Taylor 2005.07.03.16.01]
[From Bill Powers (2005.06.27.1450
MDT)]
In the case of the Necker cube, there are
three possible categories: cube with corner A closest, cube with
corner B closest, and flat overlapping squares with their corners
connected.
That’s not true for naive observers. It’s only true for people
who have been trained to see the Necker cube in only those ways.
Experimentally, in a half-hour session, people who have not been told
to see just a cube in one of the two 3-D-cube ways see many more. One
of our subjects saw as many as 21 different configurations, some of
them dynamic.
In a different experiment, Bruce Henning and I showed that in the
equivalent effect for linguistic “multiple perceptions”
induced by repetitive audio loops, the perceptions (not just the
reports of perceptions) were affected by what people were made to
expect (changes into only English or into both English and
nonsense).
People’s expectations have a strong influence on what they
perceive from the same peripheral stimulus.
If my consciousness could let me
perceive the two figures, everything would be just disorder.
What do you mean, “disorder”?
Random? Scattered all over the place? Jumping around senselessly? I
don’t think the word “disorder” explains what is wrong with
perceiving both figures are once. Martin Taylor claims to be able to
see both orientations at the same time (which I can’t even imagine, so
I have no idea what he means).
Did I say that at some point? Perhaps I did, but I can’t remember
either saying it or doing it. Maybe you are mixing it up with the fact
that most people see far more in the Necker cube than the box viewed
from two different positions, until they are told that the cubes are
all they should expect to see.
Martin
[From Bill Powers (2005.07.03.1440 MDT)]
Martin Taylor 2005.07.03.16.01 --
Martin Taylor claims to be able to see both orientations at the same time (which I can't even imagine, so I have no idea what he means).
Did I say that at some point? Perhaps I did, but I can't remember either saying it or doing it. Maybe you are mixing it up with the fact that most people see far more in the Necker cube than the box viewed from two different positions, until they are told that the cubes are all they should expect to see.
I'm glad you told me that -- I really tried to see both at once, and concluded that my mind is not as evolved as yours.
As to the additional figures, I can see more possibilities, too, but only after looking for more. The most obvious are the two cube orientations. The next is the flat figure. But if I then keep looking, I can experience changes in various parts of the figure. If someone were asking me in a neutral way, "Can you see any more forms?" I would probably be able to report more, though I haven't tried for 21.
It all goes to show that imagination can resolve ambiguities in many ways, depending on what kind of missing information is supplied from inside.
···
====================================================================
As to the "reality of social control systems" bit, I don't think I was contracting what Mary said, which was also what I have said in those discussions. There is no way one person can simply adjust reference signals in another person's head, and one person's perceptions are not functions of multiple perceptual signals in other people's heads. So the basic architecture of HPCT simply does not apply to social systems. If you want to propose a social control system, you will have to find a different kind of organization. Because all information has to enter through the lowest level and all action has to be generated by the lowest level -- also a basic thesis of Layered Protocol Theory -- the relationship between two people cannot be that of a higher level to a lower level inside one person.
Best,
Bill P.